Check out the official website:

Sentosa Cove (www.sentosacove.com.sg)

Source: The Business Times (http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/story/0,4567,90883,00.html)

August 14, 2003
First Sentosa homes in North Cove
Almost two-thirds of 2,600 waterfront homes planned for Sentosa Cove will be there, reports Kalpana Rashiwala

IF you're hankering after a seafront bungalow overlooking the Southern islands, you're a step closer now. Master developer Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd is understood to have pin-pointed the northern half of the 117-hectare stretch on Sentosa where the maiden parcels will be put up for sale later this year.

North Cove, as it will be called, lies on the eastern part of Sentosa and will house about 1,500 homes - likely to be a mix of bungalows, terraces and condominiums, BT understands. These will make up nearly two-thirds of the 2,600 homes planned for the entire waterfront housing development.

Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd, a unit of Sentosa Development Corporation, is said to be finalising the selection of the maiden land parcels that will be tendered out. Their release is widely expected to be before the year runs out - provided no more major bad news hits the property market. It will market the parcels, to be sold on 99-year leases, to developers as well as individuals (in the case of landed homes) keen to build their own homes.

Bungalow parcels on North Cove offer a spread of views, from skylines of the Central Business District, to the Serapong Golf Course on Sentosa and Pulau Brani. There will be seafront bungalows with views of the Southern islands and bungalows located on man-made islets surrounded by canals or water-ways. Some of the terrace parcels will look out to the city skyline. The condo parcels will mostly face the Southern islands.

Dredging and other works are still going on in South Cove which suggests the sale of plots in this section of Sentosa Cove may be a while off. Sentosa Cove, which will come up on mostly reclaimed land, will have in all 2,000 condo units, 300 bungalows and 300 terrace homes.

While the concept of waterfront resort housing has proven popular in places like Port Grimaud in the French Riviera and Sanctuary Cove and Oyster Cove on Australia's Gold Coast, Sentosa Cove will be unrivalled given its proximity to the CBD and cultural and entertainment spots like Esplanade Theatres on The Bay, say Sentosa Cove's supporters.

Homes on Sentosa Cove will be targeted at not only well-heeled Singaporeans but also international investors perhaps with businesses in Asia and who would like this to be a holiday home, in the fashion of Sanctuary Cove along Australia's Gold Coast, Gulf Harbour in Auckland, New Zealand, and the French Riviera where they can retire to in the summer.

In order to increase Sentosa Cove's appeal to foreign investors, the Residential Property Act, which imposes restrictions on foreign ownership of landed homes here, may need to be fine-tuned, say property agents.

BT understands that the bungalow parcels will be about 700 to 800 square metres each, although bidders can try to bag two or more parcels on which to build a big villa, for instance. Terrace parcels will be offered in lots of four, six or eight units.

Bungalows and terrace homes on Sentosa Cove will mostly be two storeys high. Condos will by and large be low-rise, six storeys high in most cases. There will be two exceptions. A pair of 20-storey condo towers will mark the gateway to the marina basin. There will be one such tower each on the North and South coves.

Owners of homes facing the waterways can berth their yachts (with a maximum length of 12 metres) in front of their homes. Bigger yachts will have to berth at a marina that will have capacity for 240 berths.

Property consultants say land prices on Sentosa Cove are likely to be comparable to leasehold land in the prime districts 9, 10 and 11, but they gave mixed views on whether the prices will be at a premium or discount. 'It will no doubt be a very prestigious housing locale. Most Singaporeans who buy a home on Sentosa Cove will be looking at an alternative lifestyle, having a weekend or holiday home. Some like couples without young children may have it as a first home.

'However, because Sentosa Cove will lack amenities like schools and due to its distance from facilities on the mainland, the market is likely to price Sentosa Cove's land parcels at a slight discount to 99-year prime district land on the mainland. I would think a 10 to 15 per cent discount would not be unreasonable,' suggested Knight Frank managing director Tan Tiong Cheng. However, another consultant disagreed, reasoning that prices of plots on Sentosa Cove may be able to match or even exceed those of Districts 9, 10 and 11.

'This is going to be a lifestyle-driven housing district,' she said.

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2003-08-14/140803_pg8_krsentosa.gif

Source: The Straits Times (http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/singapore/story/0,4386,215185,00.html?)

Resort living soon... at Sentosa

Seafront development Sentosa Cove to boast private docking berths, a marina and great views

By Vladimir Guevarra

RESORT living is finally becoming a reality: Some of the land set aside for a 2,600-unit seafront development on the eastern part of Sentosa island will go on sale next Wednesday.

A 174,000 sq ft site for a 206-unit condominium as well as plots ranging from 3,000 to 8,000 sq ft for 18 bungalows and 24 terrace houses are being offered at Sentosa Cove in the first phase. The selling point, said its owners, is that many of the land parcels come with private berths for owners to dock their boats. The tender for the first plots will close on Dec 3. The condo is expected to be six storeys high, while the bungalows and terrace houses will be no higher than two storeys.

'There is a window of opportunity now, especially with buying sentiment returning along with better economic prospects next year,' said Sentosa Cove company chairman Alan Choe, who has been working on the development plan since 1986. Singapore's economy is expected to grow by 3 to 5 per cent next year.

Mr Choe - who was chairman of Sentosa Development Corporation and turned the island of Sentosa from a defunct British military base into a popular tourist attraction - said that the marina-themed project would be launched in phases over the next three to five years.

The 117ha site, of mostly reclaimed land and five man-made islets, comprises 13 plots for condos, one for a hotel and about 450 other pieces of land for bungalows and terrace houses. Depending on where his unit is, a home buyer could have clear views of the sea and the southern islands, the city or lush landscaping. The project's centrepiece will be a marina for 240 yachts and 100,000 sq ft for pubs, restaurants, cafes and shopping centres.

Chesterton International's associate director Nicholas Mak said the site would complement the lifestyle of well-heeled residents in the Orchard Road and River Valley areas. Analysts were hard-pressed to find a development to compare Sentosa Cove to, but some estimated that completed condo units there could fetch prices at least 5 per cent higher than the $740 per sq ft Keppel Land is getting for its Caribbean at Keppel Bay.

Developers expressed a lot of interest in the project. City Developments spokesman Gerry de Silva said it would be particularly keen on sites 'which are well-located or with special features', such as Sentosa. An industry source said that Pontiac Land, said to be in negotiations to develop villas and hotel rooms in other parts of Sentosa, may also bid for the condo site in Sentosa Cove. Its spokesman would only say: 'We look forward to participating in Sentosa's future development.'

AGE-OLD FEARS REMAIN

WILL the rich and trendy be drawn to live and relax on an island that was once called Pulau Blakang Mati? It seems age would have something to do with it. The Malay name means 'the island with death lurking behind'. Many Singaporeans died there during the Japanese Occupation in the 1940s.

Some old-timers The Straits Times spoke to said they would rather avoid the place, because of their fears of the supernatural. One of them, Madam Tan Twee Neo, 76, who was in her teens during the Japanese Occupation, said: 'Even if I could afford a bungalow on Sentosa now, I'd definitely give it a miss.'

But for some young Singaporeans, Sentosa would be the place to be at. Public relations executive Fang Su Lien, 29, said: 'Nobody believes in ghosts nowadays. Those are old stories. Mrs Fang, who lives with her family in Eunos, said: 'If you give me a yacht and a house in Sentosa, I would definitely live there.'

I hate such things, because I cant live in it.:D

Mrs Fang, who lives with her family in Eunos, said: 'If you give me a yacht and a house in Sentosa, I would definitely live there.'

Yep, can't argue with that. If someone would be generous enough to give..

I'm just thinking of the awesome views of the skyline amidst a tranquil setting there!:guns1:

Here's all the info you can find in the site, presented to the lazy people who hate clinking on links. :D

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/logo-white.gif

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/home/title-home.gif

Azure seas. Acclaimed golf courses. Nature in all her resplendent glory. The city just 10 minutes away. A marina at your doorstep.

This is Sentosa Cove, Singapore's premier integrated waterfront residential enclave.

Dive into the ultimate luxury of this world-class development, nestled on Sentosa island's eastern shores, and a sanctuary you can truly call home.

Design your own living space on generous land parcels that offers a wealth of opportunity for the individualistic and bold.

Savour the luxury of modern living at the Marina Village - where wining, dining and shopping are just a stone's throw away from your front lawn. and have we mentioned Sentosa Cove Marina, Asia's finest yachting hub and meeting point for the world's yachtsmen?

Come, sail home to Sentosa Cove.

http://e.1asphost.com/sssc/Others/Sentosa%20Cove.jpg

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/living/lifestyle.jpg

A Dream Lifestyle Awaits
Savour the crisp ocean breeze of the South China Sea as you wake up to the sounds of the lapping waves. Set sail from your doorstep or dine under the stars onboard your private yacht. Here, the finest lifestyle is for the taking. A private sanctuary with a resort feel, Sentosa Cove is surrounded by acres of golf greens on one side, calming blue waters on the other, and an exciting hinterland.

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/living/living2.jpg

A Safe and Secured Environment
Home at Sentosa Cove is a private residential enclave centred on a gated community concept. Vehicular access to the residential areas is limited to residents and authorised personnel only. Residents will also enjoy 24-hour security service with an efficient team of island rangers guarding the estate. A central security monitoring system further complements the security network.

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/living/bridge.jpg

Getting Around
Getting around Sentosa Cove is easy. The estate is well connected by a breathtaking network of waterways, scenic footpath, roads, and buggy tracks. Commune with nature as you stroll along the seafront promenade, whiz around in your very own golf buggy, or hop on a shuttle bus. The choices are varied.

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/living/path.jpg

Amenities At Your Doorstep
Beyond your personal horizon at Sentosa Cove lies an electic mix of leisure pursuits. Tee-off at magnificent greens round the corner. Bask in the golden sands of Sentosa's glorious beaches. Or rejunvenate at an alluring spa resort. The choices are varied and unlimited.

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/living/golf.jpg

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/living/residential.jpg

SENTOSA COVE BUNGALOWS
Where Dream Homes are a Reality

This majestic coast setting offers one of the most sought-after residential addresses in the region. To cater to even the most ambitious of palatial living, generous land sizes are available for one-of-a-kind residential development.

Each land parcel, whether facing a stunning sea vista or a spectacular golf course and verdant tropical landscape, has been generously carved out to give you full reign in designing your dream abode.

Yet you can be fully confident that the unique overall ambience of well-controlled, low-scale, carefully massed houses is designed in great harmony. This is a place for reflection and rejuvenation. A place to call HOME.

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/living/bungalow.jpg

SENTOSA COVE TERRACE HOUSES
For Diversity and Character

Another residential typology, the terrace houses at Sentosa Cove offer a varied living environment, providing diversity and alternatives to the bungalows.

Panoramic sea views and inspiring greenery are again exploited to provide an unmatched homecoming and living environment. Overlooking the romantic waterways or the green fairways, most will also come with the option of private berths where you can access your luxury sea craft without hassle. With generous land sizes and luxurious interiors open to creative interpretation and self-expression, these terrace plots offer exciting opportunities for you to re-define your perfect lifestyle.

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/living/terrace.jpg

SENTOSA COVE CONDOMINIUMS
Condominium-Living Redefined

There are condominiums but none quite like those at Sentosa Cove. These unique waterfront residences combine the best in condominium living with the added luxury of private berthing options.

Enveloped in tranquillity, the low-rise apartments offer an exclusive resort village ambience. The two condominium towers, on the other hand, reach boldly for the sky and are a prominent landmark. They offer an unrivalled and unobstructed view of the seascape, with views of the Southern Islands and beyond that, the deep waters of the South China Sea.

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/living/condo.jpg

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/marina/marina.jpg

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/marina/title.gif
Perched at the gateway of the Riau Archipelago and the South China Sea, the marina at Sentosa Cove is conceived to be Asia’s finest yachting hub.

The luxuriously appointed marina is also the first marina in Singapore designed to house mega yachts in sheltered waters. And whichever corner of the globe yachtsmen hail from, the Marina will offer an intimate welcome suffused with the latest in cosmopolitan conveniences.

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/marina/marinavillage.jpg

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/marina/title-mvillage.gif
Take a stroll down the romantic lanes of Marina Village and discover its fascinating selection of eclectic and fine restaurants, al-fresco cafes and exquisite shops.

There’s more at the five-star resort hotel by the idyllic oceanfront. And with the sea as a picture-perfect backdrop, enchanted evenings under a canopy of scintillating stars could be nightly affairs at the Marina Village. All you need to enjoy its distinctive ambience, colour and flavour is time.

SENTOSA COVE RESORT HOTEL
http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/marina/title-mvillage-hotel.gif
The tapestry of lifestyle choices at Sentosa Cove is not quite complete without a resort hotel.

Sitting at the edge of the marina, this unique seaside retreat offers a world of leisure and luxury by the sea. Rooms open out to stunning seaviews and maritime panoramas unmatched by any other hotels in Singapore. Even the most exacting visitor will find this a visual treat.

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/marina/pic3.jpg

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/location/title.gif
Cosily tucked away on the serene eastern shores of the resort island, Sentosa Cove stands in sharp contrast to
mainland Singapore and the hustle and bustle of a 21st century metropolis.

Yet it is just minutes away, if you need to escape to your private sanctuary.

Getting to Sentosa Cove is easy via the Sentosa causeway bridge. Or if you prefer, ride in the cable car and take in
the scenic beauty. Come 2006, the new light rail system will provide another means of access to, and from the island.
And with an MRT system on the other end of the crossway, there’s no need to own a car if you choose not to.

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/location/mapofsentosa.jpg

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/sale/land.jpg

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/sale/words.gif
Limited land parcels are now available for sale by tender. Be among the first to savour a premier marina lifestyle unprecedented in Singapore!

http://e.1asphost.com/sssc/Others/Sentosa%20Cove%20Sales.jpg

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/sale/tender.jpg

How do I tender for a land parcel at Sentosa Cove?

Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd, on behalf and as agent for Sentosa Development Corporation (“the Corporation”) is inviting tender for the lease of selected land parcels in Sentosa Cove for a term of 99 years.

There are 18 land parcels for Bungalow Development, 3 land parcels for Terrace Development and 1 parcel for Condominium Development. For land parcels fronting the waterways, the Successful Tenderer may apply for a licence to build a pontoon and/or moor a yacht.

Purchase of Tender Packet

Tender Packets are available for sale at the Sentosa Cove Sales & Information Centre at S$100 (GST included) each.

For delivery of Tender Packets please contact us at (65) 6270 0200 or (65) 6274 3036. Delivery charges shall apply for both local and overseas delivery.

Contents of Tender Packet

There are two sets of Tender Packets – one for Bungalows and Terraces Parcels and another for Condominium Parcel.

Each Tender Packet contains the

- Marketing Brochure
- Tender Brief
- Conditions of Tender with appendices
- Development Guidelines and Planning Parameters
- Soil Test Report
- Form of Tender for tender submission (there will be different Forms of Tender for Bungalow Parcels, Terrace Parcels and Condominium Parcel)
- Submission Envelope
- Enquiry Form
- Drawings and plans pertaining to the land parcels available for tender
- Application Forms (Form A & Form FC) for In-Principle Approval to Purchase Residential Property in Sentosa Cove [applicable to foreign persons* as defined under the Residential Property Act (Chapter 274)]

Tender Submission

(a) All tenders must be submitted in original Forms of Tender. Extra copies of the form can be obtained from Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd.

(b) Individual home buyers or developers who are interested in tendering for a land parcel at Sentosa Cove may submit tender for one or more land parcels but each land parcel shall be tendered in a separate Tender Submission Envelope and Form of Tender duly completed and signed by the Tenderer.

(c) All tenders consisting of

1. Tender Deposit
2. Form of Tender
3. For a Singapore Citizen, a copy of the NRIC
4. For a Singapore company, a copy of the Certificate of Incorporation
5. For a foreign person*, a copy of the passport and RPA in-principle approval from the Land Dealings (Approval) Unit
6. For a foreign company*, a certified true copy of the Certificate of Incorporation (or equivalent), official company search information, records of the Tenderer maintained by the relevant authority in its place of incorporation and a copy of the RPA in-principle approval from the Land Dealings (Approval Unit).

must be deposited in a sealed envelope in the Tender Box at Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd, 1st Storey at 31 Allanbrooke Road, Sentosa, Singapore 099980 between 9 am and 12 noon on 3 December 2003 only.

Tender Deposit

Every tenderer shall enclose at the time of submission of the Tender a deposit equivalent to five percent (5%) of the Tender Premium.

The Tender Deposit shall be paid by:

(a) Cashier’s Order
(b) Bank Guarantee
(c) Or a combination of (a) and (b) for the total sum of the Tender Deposit.

Payment in cash or by cheque or any other means will not be accepted.

Payment of Tender Premium

The Successful Tenderer shall pay twenty percent (20%) of the Tender Premium within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of the Corporation’s Letter of Acceptance of his Tender. The balance seventy-five percent (75%) of the Tender Premium is payable within ninety (90) days of the date of the Letter of Acceptance.

Tender Validity Period

All Tenders submitted shall remain valid for a period of twelve (12) weeks from and including the Tender Closing Date (i.e. 3 December 2003).

Acceptance of Tender

The Successful Tenderer shall be informed of the acceptance of his tender by registered post.

The Corporation reserves the right not to accept the highest of any tender.

Submission of Design Proposal & Plans

The Successful Tenderer shall submit to the Corporation the Development Programme within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Letter of Acceptance of Tender.

The Successful Tenderer shall also submit full and complete plans, elevations and specifications, architectural models, material samples and artist’s impression of the development to be erected on the land parcel for review and approval prior to the commencement of work pursuant to the Building Agreement.

Development Completion Period

The Development Completion Periods are 48 months from the date of the Letter of Acceptance of the tender for Bungalows and Terraces and 60 months from the date of Letter of Acceptance for Condominium Development.

Foreign Ownership

The Tenderer, if a foreign person* or a foreign company* as defined under the Residential Property Act (RPA), must apply to the Land Dealings (Approval) Unit (LDU) for the relevant approval pursuant to the RPA for purchasing the land parcel.

Such Tenderers shall tender for the land parcel with in-principle approval from LDU. A copy of the prescribed form for in-principle approval is enclosed in the Tender Packet.

All applications are to be sent to the Land Dealings (Approval) Unit at 8 Shenton Way #27-02 Temasek Tower Singapore 068811.

Upon award of the tender, the Successful Tenderer must apply for and obtain formal approval from LDU and submit a certified copy of such approval to the Corporation within eight (8) weeks from the date of the Letter of Acceptance.

* Non-citizen, permanent resident, foreign company or converted foreign company, society or converted society

Enquiries

Enquiries may be made on the Enquiry Form provided in the Tender Packet by fax (65) 6274 3937 or email to enquiry_cove @sentosa.com.sg.

All enquiries should reach us by 18 November 2003.

Disclaimer

The contents above are only meant to highlight some principal points of the Tender and the terms and conditions thereto and are not to be construed as constituting part of the tender documents.

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/sale/foreigners.jpg

Please click to open the following application forms:

FORM A - Application by foreign person seeking in-principle approval to purchase/acquire (http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/form%20a%20-%20new.pdf)

FORM FC - Application by foreign company seeking in-principle approval to purchase/acquire
a residential in Singapore (PDF file - 123kb) (http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/form%20fc%20-%20new.pdf)

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/mediaroom.jpg

NEWS RELEASE

Sentosa Cove launches sites for Singapore's first landed homes with private berths

- Less than 300 such homes available
- Exclusive integrated waterfront housing enclave set to be best in region

Singapore, 21 October 2003 – 8 choice landed sites facing the waterways will be among the 22 available under Sentosa Cove’s maiden land tender which opens tomorrow. The 5 bungalows and 24 terrace units to be built on these 8 sites will be the first landed homes in Singapore with private berthing facilities. There are plans for no more than 300 such homes in Singapore, and all will be located within the enclave of Sentosa Cove. Sentosa Cove’s maiden tender is also unique in that it is the first time that individuals have the opportunity to bid alongside property developers for a site to custom-build their dream homes.

Master-planned and developed by Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd, Sentosa Cove is spread over 117 hectares of land, much of it reclaimed by extending the neighbouring island of Buran Darat.

When fully developed, Sentosa Cove will have about 2,600 housing units. In addition to 500 sites for bungalow and terrace houses, 14 sites are available for condominium development. Most, if not all, offer breathtaking views of the ocean, the waterways, or the lush greenery of the golf courses.
More significantly, Sentosa Cove is the first, and will be the only residential precinct on Sentosa. A $2 billion facelift to enhance Sentosa as a world-class resort destination promises an extended variety of quality leisure pursuits for the Sentosa Cove resident when completed.

Inspired by the world’s leading waterfront developments, Sentosa Cove is designed to fulfil the aspirations of those who wish to experience a premium marina-oriented lifestyle on a resort island, and yet remain close to the city.

Said Mr Bernard Kong, Chief Executive Officer of Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd, “Sentosa Cove has been meticulously and carefully planned over many years. It has been designed to elevate the standards of luxury and fine waterfront living to an unprecedented level in Asia.

“Sentosa Cove is set to be the most sought after residential address, and the marina and leisure destination of choice.”

Sentosa Cove stands out as the region’s premium waterfront housing enclave for several reasons. It is unmatched in terms of location. Nestled on the northeastern coast of Sentosa, it is just 10 minutes away from Singapore’s Central Business District. Tanjong and Serapong, two of the world’s best golf courses are in its immediate neighbourhood. In addition to a world-class marina designed to house mega yachts (yachts that are over 30 metres in length), residents with homes fronting the waterways have the added privilege and convenience of private berthing right outside their doorways. There is also a themed marina village for a unique quayside shopping, dining, and entertainment experience.

The development of Sentosa Cove has not only altered the shoreline of Sentosa, but is set to change the island’s character and appeal. Said Mr Kong, “We expect this development to put Singapore on the radar screen of the worldwide yachting community and further enhance Sentosa’s appeal."

“We expect the first sale of sites to be well received by both developers and individuals because Sentosa Cove offers a brand new waterfront lifestyle that is unlikely to be replicated anywhere else in Singapore.

“And for individuals, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy land to build your dream home in a unique environment,” added Mr Kong.

The 22 choice sites, many with uninterrupted sea views, available for sale under the first tender cover a combined land area of 36,983 square metres. There are 18 bungalow sites, with plot sizes ranging from 665 square metres to 891 square metres. A total of 24 terrace units may be built on the remaining 3 landed sites, which range from 1,573 squares metres to 3,605 square metres. The only condominium site available under the first tender covers a land area of 16,173 square metres and is slated for a 4 to 6 storey development. Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd intends to open the remaining land sites for tender in phases over a 3 to 4 year time frame.

Said Mr Kong: “The land tender process ensures a high degree of transparency and a level playing field for all bidders, be they property developers or individuals interested in securing a land parcel to custom design and build their dream home.”

For more information, please contact:

Marilyn Chua
Manager
Marketing Communications
Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd
Tel: 6279 3224
Fax: 6274 3937
Email: marilyn_chua@sentosa.com.sg

STRAITS TIMES NOV 10, 2003
Mega marina built for mega yachts may mean mega bucks for S'pore
Bidding to run Sentosa Cove Marina will open soon; watchers expect it to boost S'pore's image as yachting destination

By Vladimir Guevarra
PROPERTY REPORTER

SINGAPORE'S biggest marina, Sentosa Cove Marina, seems to be shaping up fast.

Bids to operate it are to be called 'in a couple of weeks', sources told The Straits Times.

The new dock, which will be surrounded by 2,600 mostly seafront residential units at the cove, will be bigger than Raffles Marina in Tuas and will have 240 berths, compared to Raffles' 165.

At least 10 of these will be built specifically for mega yachts, luxury boats longer than 120ft, making it the single biggest mooring station for such big vessels in the region.

Industry players said this and the marina's central location are likely to boost Singapore's image as a cruising destination for yacht owners around the world and generate more jobs for Singaporeans.

'It may also signal a renaissance of the boating lifestyle in Singapore,' said Mr Alessandro Diomedi, managing director of the Ferretti group of boat builders, from his office in Italy.

It is estimated there are at least 3,000 mega yachts in the world and they spend about 10 per cent of their value on operational costs each year.

So the owner of a US$50 million (S$87 million) craft, which would be in the middle range of these vessels, spends about US$5 million a year on marinas and other needs. This translates into more demand here for businesses and services like fuelling, refitting and providing spare parts, as well as hotels, food and shopping.

Experts said the new marina could introduce a more high-flying lifestyle here and spin-offs for the region.

With many of the luxury yachts owned by conglomerates, CEOs could invite business associates to sail with them to destinations like Langkawi in Malaysia or Phuket in Thailand for a weekend, while discussing possible deals.

Assuming a 30-year lease, a property analyst said the new marina, comprising 1.3ha of land and 12.3ha of seabed, could fetch bids from marina operators of around $45 million to $65 million.

This is roughly four to six times the price of Ponggol Marina in Punggol, which was sold earlier this year for $11 million.

The new marina, he added, would command a premium because of its prime location. It is situated 10 minutes from Singapore's central business district and will have a housing district immediately around it - something other marinas here do not have - which will allow boating enthusiasts to live near their craft.

Still, Chesterton International associate director Nicholas Mak said the new marina operator would need to offer competitive berthing rates initially to attract boat owners.

Berthing fees for 40ft boats at Raffles Marina are around $700 to $1,400 a month.

One investment expert suggested awarding the marina free to the lowest bidder, to lower an operator's set-up costs and to kick-start business.

'Besides purchasing the land, the operator might still have to build a world-class clubhouse worth, say, $50 million. That's quite a huge cost,' he said.

It is understood that Sentosa Cove, the project developer, has invited potential operators around the world to bid for the marina. A Sentosa Cove spokesman said it could not reveal the names of likely bidders.

Separately, an industry source said the upcoming tender may get bids from big United States marina operators like Marina Management Services, or British operators like Marina Development and Camper & Nicholsons.

Simpson Marine, one of Asia's largest boat brokers and distributors, may also put in a bid as it is entering the marina management business.

Its general manager, Mr Jyrki Jaamaa, who is based here, said: 'This marina has huge potential. We'd be more than happy to do Sentosa.'

Eh...did anyone realise how dumb it is that the new Sentosa LRT isnt going to serve this place directly?? :D

Originally posted by huaiwei

Eh...did anyone realise how dumb it is that the new Sentosa LRT isnt going to serve this place directly?? :D

Mebbe the authorities assumed that if u can afford a boat to enjoy the wide expanse of the oceans, u certainly ain't gonna get all cramped up using public transport.. :D

Makes me wonder...just how much does it cost to own a personal yauht?

US$50million for a medium sized one:D

Originally posted by Cliff

US$50million for a medium sized one:D Er........where did you get that kind of figure from??? ;) That is close to SGD100,000,000!!!

could not be that much 50 million seem way to high

Originally posted by huaiwei

Er........where did you get that kind of figure from??? ;) That is close to SGD100,000,000!!!

7th paragraph

'So the owner of a US$50 million (S$87 million) craft, which would be in the middle range of these vessels, spends about US$5 million a year on marinas and other needs. This translates into more demand here for businesses and services like fuelling, refitting and providing spare parts, as well as hotels, food and shopping.'


:D

Originally posted by Cliff

7th paragraph

'So the owner of a US$50 million (S$87 million) craft, which would be in the middle range of these vessels, spends about US$5 million a year on marinas and other needs. This translates into more demand here for businesses and services like fuelling, refitting and providing spare parts, as well as hotels, food and shopping.'


:D Ops......:bash: Goes to show that I failed to read the ariticle from head to toe. :D

First batch of 22 land parcels for homes sees last-minute bids; analysts impressed with 'overwhelming' response

4th Dec 2003

By Leong Pik Yin

ABOUT 130 bids poured in for the first batch of 22 residential land parcels released for tender on Sentosa, surprising property consultants and even the project's master developer, Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd.

Sentosa Cove's spokesman described the response as 'enthusiastic' and 'overwhelming'.

Some last-minute buyers rushed to put in their bids yesterday minutes before the noon deadline. Mr Ivan Chin, a businessman who arrived in a yellow Ferrari, was the last bidder.

The 22 plots - one for a condominium, three for 24 terrace homes, and 18 for bungalows - were released for tender six weeks ago. All are 99-year leasehold sites.

Tender bids peaked at $456 per sq ft for the bungalow plots and at $238 per sq ft for the terrace home plots.

The 174,000-sq-ft condominium site was sought after by three local developers.

Ho Bee Investments offered the highest bid of almost $110 million, while Centrepoint Properties quoted $95 million, and Woodsvale Land, which is part of CapitaLand, bid about $71 million.

Ho Bee Investments also placed a bid of $5.4 million for a terrace home site that will come with private berths for the eight owners to dock their boats.

The company's chairman and chief executive officer, Mr Chua Thian Poh, told The Straits Times that it was keen on 'doing something different'. Its landed development in Pasir Ris, The Riverina, was one of the first riverfront landed housing projects in Singapore.

'Sentosa Cove will be a resort within a resort. It's very unique,' said Mr Chua. 'I expect interest from wealthy individuals in Singapore and around the region.'

He hopes to launch the condominium units by the end of next year or in early 2005 and expects to sell them at no less than $750 per sq ft.

This is not far from the earlier estimates made by analysts, who said prices would be slightly higher than Keppel Land's 99-year Caribbean at Keppel Bay, a nearby condominium on the mainland, selling for about $740 per sq ft.

Sentosa Cove, which will have 2,600 residential units in all, will also have a 100,000-sq-ft marina village with pubs, cafes and shops.

Property consultants said the response had been stronger than expected.

Chesterton International's associate director Nicholas Mak said: 'It's pretty impressive. I believe it could be because...there are very few venues in Singapore where owners can develop their own luxury homes by the sea.'

Sentosa Cove will evaluate the submissions and announce the results soon.

Surprise surprise.....we do have some filthy rich people dont we?? :D

I think they should build more condos there so that it will be more affordable to the public. (or at least make those "signature" two 20-storey condo towers taller) :)

Originally posted by TropicalSQ744

I think they should build more condos there so that it will be more affordable to the public. (or at least make those "signature" two 20-storey condo towers taller) :) Hm..but wont that destroy the generally low-rise character of the place, although I wont mind a 100-storey tower there. :D

20 Sentosa Cove plots for bungalows and terrace houses and a condo site may be open for bidding in next three months

Dec 16 2003

By Vladimir Guevarra

STRONG demand for the first seafront homes on Sentosa has spurred the managers of Sentosa Cove to sell more plots in the next three months.

Sources said at least 20 sites for the building of bungalows and terrace houses will be open for bids.

Also in the market will be a separate condominium site that can accommodate more than 200 homes.

According to a source, the bungalows will be on one of three man-made islets - Treasure Island, Paradise Island and Coral Island - in the northern part of the cove.

The islets measure from 237,000 sq ft to 344,000 sq ft and are surrounded by a man-made water channel within the Sentosa Cove development.

When contacted, Sentosa Cove spokesman Marilyn Chua confirmed that there are plans to launch the new sites in the first quarter of next year, but said the number and location of these plots are still being studied.

There were around 130 bids for the first batch of 22 sites when the tenders closed earlier this month. However, only three developers submitted bids for the condominium sites.

Local developer Ho Bee Investments offered the highest bid of almost $110 million for a 174,000 sq ft condominium site, beating rivals Centrepoint Properties and CapitaLand.

Some developers told The Straits Times that they did not take part in the tender because of a 'prohibitive' requirement for the first condominium site - that it should have no more than 208 units.

With that number, it is estimated that the units there would be fairly large, with each unit at 1,300 sq ft to 1,400 sq ft on average.

This restriction, said one major developer who declined to be named, ruled out the building of studio units - which are preferred by young couples and singles.

Indeed, recent projects like the 646-unit Icon project in Tanjong Pagar, which has studio apartments as small as 583 sq ft, sold more than 80 per cent of its units in just over two months since its launch in May.

However, Sentosa Cove's Ms Chua pointed out that developers can create a mix of small and big units as long as they comply with the maximum number of units allowed for each condominium site.

She also said it was necessary to put a cap on the number of homes 'to preserve the charm and ambience' of Sentosa Cove and 'to ensure its exclusivity and retain its resort ambience'.

'This same principle will apply to future condominium sites,' she added.

The cove is expected to have 14 condominium developments altogether when it is fully developed in eight years' time.

Chesterton International associate director Nicholas Mak agreed the cove's exclusivity would be a major selling point.

'You can't have too many condominiums there, otherwise it'll lose its resort-like feel and end up looking like a concrete jungle,' he said.

The entire cove will have at most 2,600 homes, a ceiling partly determined by the maximum number of carpark lots allowed in the 117ha development, said Ms Chua. It is understood that government planners have set the cap at 3,700 lots.

Ample parking space was a factor considered in arriving at the maximum number of homes possible, said Ms Chua, adding that many home owners are likely to have more than one car and their visitors would also drive to the island.
-------

I doubt you'll see a 100-storey tower there:cheers:

Hahaha..oh well, I will be awaiting for the to start selling that condo plot with the two towers. ;)

Actually to own a personal yacht isn't that expensive.....the USD50 million is for a 'medium sized' of the mega yacht categories. The bigger of these are usually owned by the super rich such as the Sultan of Brunei.....the princes of Saudi and the most famous of all - dubbed the 'TITS' by Prince Jeffri of Brunei :D

I kinda interested in personal yacht many years ago and I still do regularly buy magazines on this subject.

If I am not mistaken the largest Singaporean-owned craft is the Asran Lady at 290ft ( I believe it is owned by a Singaporean as it is regularly docked at Raffles Marina :D )..... ;)

Wah.....so what name are you going to christian your craft with? Remember to take me on a ride! :D

25 Dec 2003

Ho Bee's terrace homes could cost at least that sum and will be completed in 15 months; each plot will be twice the size of those on mainland

By Vladimir Guevarra And Tan Hui Yee

IF YOU'VE got at least $1.7 million sitting around and would like to live next to the glitterati of Singapore, get a home in Sentosa Cove.

Work on two-storey terrace houses, with plots measuring around 3,000 sq ft - or almost double the size of similar properties on the mainland - will start in the third quarter of next year.

The 99-year leasehold units will be located just across the street from the exclusive bungalow developments, which have been bought by some prominent individuals, such as Dr Della Suantio Lee of the Lee Foundation, and Mr Henry Tan, chairman of Accord Customer Care Solutions.

According to Ho Bee Investment, one of two developers which have won rights to built the terrace houses, the resort-themed units should be completed within 15 months and could cost at least $1.7 million, or an average of $570 per sq ft of built-up area.

A property analyst said this is higher than the $360 psf average price of other 99-year leasehold terrace units in the mainland. 'Then again, the Sentosa Cove units are meant for the upper class, so for a very high-end product, these prices are expected,' she said.

Each of the first 14 terrace houses to be built there - eight by Ho Bee and six by Hai Leck Development - will also have private berths for boats about 12m long.

On Tuesday, the managers of the cove re-released eight unsold sites in a new tender, which will close on Jan 27. Sentosa Cove chief executive Bernard Kong said unsuccessful bidders in the first tender may try again for the plots.

They include food magnate Sam Goi, who had bid for two adjoining bungalow sites to build a holiday home for himself. The owner of food manufacturer Tee Yih Jia told The Straits Times that he had put in a price of $300 to $350 psf for the two sites.

Mr Goi has not decided if he will bid again for the sites.

Meanwhile, Land Resources Group, which failed in its bid for three bungalow sites, said it would wait and see before trying again.

The company had bid between $250 and $300 psf for the parcels. Managing director Steven Soh estimated that at that price, each bungalow would need to be sold at a minimum of $3.8 million.

Commenting on the top bid of $456 psf that Dr Lee had put in for her bungalow site, he said: 'It looks like the price is very high. As we are developers, we have to take note of whether the market can absorb it or not.'

Still, Mr Soh conceded that the Sentosa Cove tender was a test case for the Singapore property market as there are no comparable seafront residential sites.

Said Sentosa Cove's Mr Kong: 'The top bids for the sites awarded have set the price benchmark for Sentosa Cove's new marina lifestyle housing. Tenderers should use these prices as a guide.'

Hm....the owners of those homes is going to read like the who's who of the richest folks on this island!

I'll be expecting loads of artciles and pics when people start their new 'resort' living there..and brochures:cool:

7 Feb 2004

FORTY-TWO bids were received yesterday for eight plots of land up for tender at Sentosa Cove.

The bids, while slightly lower than those for the maiden tender in December, were still within market expectations.

But some particular bids were quite a bit softer, raising the possibility that a few sites may still not be sold, said property analysts.

The eight sites were left over from the December exercise - they were withdrawn because the bids were lower than the reserve prices set by Sentosa Cove's management.

Sentosa Cove is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sentosa Leisure Group, the statutory board in charge of managing and promoting Sentosa island.

In December, seafront bungalows - the most desirable units - fetched top bids of $302 per square foot to $456 psf. Yesterday saw bids ranging from $311 psf to $450 psf.

In December, plots meant for standalone bungalows facing the inner waterway fetched top bids of $260 psf to $400 psf. But yesterday, bids of only $235 psf to $305 psf were tendered.

The plot meant for terrace houses, meanwhile, fetched a top bid of $190 psf yesterday, compared to between $228 psf and $238 psf in December.

The bids of $235 psf for the standalone bungalows and those for the terrace plot are unlikely to succeed, said some analysts.

One reason for the slightly softer bids, suggested Chesterton International's research and consultancy director Nicholas Mak: Some interested bidders may be waiting for the new round of tenders.

'Those who did not purchase sites in December could be waiting for the next round - there is a chance that some of these sites could be just as good, if not better than the last one.'

Besides, people were a bit wiser after the maiden launch, because they got a better idea of the fair market price, so the range of bids was much narrower, he said.

The next tender is due by the end of the first quarter. When contacted yesterday, Sentosa Cove would not comment on whether the eight sites would be sold.

Situated at the eastern part of the resort island, Sentosa Cove will offer choice housing amid a unique setting - private pubs, restaurants, cafes and shopping centres, and even a marina for 240 yachts.

Prominent individuals who have already secured their pieces of seafront include Lee Foundation's Dr Della Suantio Lee and Accord Customer Care Solutions' chairman Henry Tan.

It actually sounds fun seeing how the individual sites are being sold...haha! A hair-rasing game of multiple millions involving prominent folks? ;)

11 March 2004

Government gives developer special licence to let foreigners buy landed properties on resort island

By Rebecca Lee

SENTOSA Cove's potential as a hot destination for the global glitterati has been given a significant boost by a decision to allow foreign ownership of its landed properties.

And that's exactly what the place needed, property analysts said yesterday of the move to add a red carpet for the rich and famous alongside the resort's welcome rug for tourists.

'This is a godsend for Sentosa Cove's marketing team,' said Chesterton International associate director Nicholas Mak.

'It's like hitting the jackpot.'

A special arrangement has been made for Sentosa Cove to permit foreigners to buy landed properties there.

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lee Hsien Loong disclosed this yesterday when he responded to Dr Wang Kai Yuen's suggestion that Singapore follow Dubai's lead.

Dubai is developing The Palm, a US$3-billion, (S$5.1-billion) palm-shaped resort island that has attracted the rich and famous, such as footballers David Beckham and Michael Owen, to buy its super-luxurious properties.

Singapore, too, can be the 'land of opportunity' that Dr Wang (Bukit Timah) described, Mr Lee said.

Close to the growing markets of India and China, it is safe and clean, has a livelier arts, leisure and entertainment scene now and a cosmopolitan culture that welcomes foreigners, he said.

'And we are a safe and peaceful oasis in a turbulent world, a special red dot that is a haven for Singaporeans and foreigners alike,' he said.

While Dr Wang's expectation of the economy to grow by 7 to 8 per cent a year and for the population to reach eight million in 15 years is unrealistic, Mr Lee said Singapore can step up to its next stage of development if it can grow by 3 to 5 per cent a year.

Property analysts who applauded the move included CB Richard Ellis executive director Soon Su Lin, who said: 'It could potentially put the property on the global real estate map.'

A waterfront home with a view of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is one such sought-after global address.

DTZ Debenham Tie Leung associate director Tang Wei Leng said: 'You need certain elements of a different culture to make it more hip and happening.'

The marina concept is new here and though well-travelled Singaporeans may have seen how marina-living overseas works, they may not be able to imagine it here.

'But foreigners who have experienced it will be able to set the trend for others here to follow,' she said.

Foreigners may buy high-rise properties without seeking permission but they have to get government permission to buy landed property.

Sentosa Cove developer Sentosa Leisure Group declined to comment on the announcement yesterday, preferring to wait for more details to be announced in the next few days.

I wasent even aware that foreigners cant buy landed property until I saw this article!! :eek: Good thing they are relaxing that silly rule for this case! ;)

I hope this may just be the thing that makes Sentosa work rather than being a Freak-Park. Fingers-crossed:cool:

Top-draw resort for southern isles

13 March 2004

Sentosa and other enlarged islands will be linked up in ambitious plan to attract rich and famous. Casino idea under study

By Audrey Tan

SENTOSA is about to become a must-visit spot for the world's rich and famous, with even a casino likely to be among its new attractions.

A part of the island, called Sentosa Cove, along with the Southern Islands, will be transformed into an international resort playground with white sand beaches, marinas, spas, gourmet restaurants, high-end fashion malls and possibly even a gambling spot for high rollers.

The plans were sketched out by Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo in Parliament yesterday.

The world-class resort and residential development will be spread over some 500 ha, about the size of 10 Botanical Gardens.

The Southern Islands - made up of the two Sisters Islands, Pulau Seringat, Lazarus Island and St John's Island - have already been enlarged by reclamation. They will be linked to Sentosa by boat or by a bridge, and further reclamation will be done to create the development.

And in the first-ever indication by the Government that casinos may be allowed in Singapore, Brigadier-General (NS) Yeo said: 'We are keeping an open mind on what to have in this development, including the possibility of having a casino.'

But he reassured the House that there will be measures in place to limit access to the casino by Singaporeans and to keep out organised crime.

BG Yeo was speaking during the debate on the ministry's budget for the coming financial year. In his speech, he also gave an update on Singapore's economy, its external wing and the benefits Singapore has derived from its Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).

Singapore's present growth momentum is strong and 'of good quality', he said. 'Growth is broad-based and in sectors which will help secure our longer-term future.'

Singapore has also enlarged its external space through its investments overseas and through the FTAs. From 1992 to 2002, its direct investments overseas has increased from $22 billion to $146 billion.

Its FTAs have increased trade, helped create new jobs, as well as keep jobs in traditional industries such as the textiles and apparel industry.

If more companies and Singaporeans can be encouraged to venture overseas, Singapore's gross national product - which includes income from abroad - will be significantly greater than its gross domestic product in 10 years' time, BG Yeo said.

Singapore is also intent on building a vibrant business environment so it can be the London of Asia. 'We are liberalising in a controlled manner, sometimes experimenting along the way,' he added.

The development of Sentosa Cove and the Southern Islands is a case in point.

BG Yeo said: 'What we envisage is an international facility separate from Singapore, but accessible to all Singaporeans, with more relaxed rules to attract international talent, visitors and investments.'

The project will help Singapore maintain its position among the front rank of cities in 21st century Asia, he added.

Besides hotels, private homes, marinas, retail and food outlets, the development will also have sports complexes, convention centres, venues for international shows and theme attractions.

Plans are still at an early stage, as the Government has not yet engaged international consultants to help map out the possibilities.

But BG Yeo yesterday pointed to Atlantis, Paradise Island in the Bahamas as an indication of what is possible.

Atlantis offers a range of water sports, gourmet dining, haute couture fashion, world-class spas and clubs. Its hotels charge between US$215 (S$365) and US$2,450 a night.

But BG Yeo added that what could emerge in Sentosa 'will be and will have to be uniquely Singaporean'.

Mr Darrell Metzger, chief executive of Sentosa Leisure Group, also likened the Sentosa/Southern Islands development to Palm Island in Dubai where international jetsetters will pay for exclusivity.

The planned development will plug a gap in Singapore and Asia, he said. 'Singapore doesn't have a really classy destination resort now to bring the family to... This development also won't have a lot of competition in Asia,' he added.

Industry operators were also excited about the opportunities that will open up.

Mr Steven Choo, senior vice-president of research and direct investments at property developer CapitaLand, said: 'It's fresh; it ups the ante and takes us to a different scale.'

****

Comments anyone? Sounds exciting although I am not a casino type..or maybe lol

Cheers for Sentosa's playground for the rich

13 March 2004

500ha leisure enclave will be modelled on Atlantis on Paradise Island in the Bahamas

By Tee Hun Ching

A WORLD-CLASS resort on Sentosa is the best idea to catapult Singapore into the top league of tourism destinations they have heard in years, property and leisure industry players gushed yesterday.

Many also praised the decision to link it to the southern islands.

It would give the cluster the edge to rival the Caribbean and Dubai, said Mr Steven Choo, property developer CapitaLand's senior vice-president of research and direct investments.

But the possibility of a casino, long rejected outright by the Government, got the most nods of approval.

One of them is from Mrs Jannie Tay, managing director of The Hour Glass. She suggested that 'a brand-name operator' such as Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, would draw the rich from the region.

What's for sure in the plans of the residential and leisure enclave revealed by Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo, are homes, hotels, marinas, spas, convention centre, retail and F&B outlets.

They would spread over more than 500ha - roughly the size of 10 Botanic Gardens.

It's a forward-looking move, said Mr Choo, echoing the views of many.

'It's fresh, ups the ante and takes us to a different class. Any one island just wouldn't have the scale.'

International consultants would be engaged for the project, said Brigadier-General (NS) Yeo, and Atlantis on Paradise Island in the Bahamas would be used as a development guide.

Mr Kwek Leng Beng, executive chairman of Hong Leong Group, said the timing was just right.

'Announcing this when the economy is on the mend will make the project more attractive to shrewd investors than when the market is at its peak and prices are high.'

Many leisure operators expressed interest in getting involved.

Mr Peter Sng, president of Spa Association of Singapore, said that subject to water quality, the resort could be an ideal site for a phalasso centre, a form of spa using fresh seawater.

Many noted, however, that the best selling point is the proximity of the waterfront haven to the city.

Mr Francis Phun, chairman for the Association of Singapore Attractions, said this would give people 'the best of both worlds'.

But he felt the casino may not be a big draw as 'there are already a few casinos in neighbouring countries such as Malaysia.'

But Mrs Tay believes it will attract the rich from Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia.

'Currently, they fly all over the world, to casinos in Melbourne, Gold Coast and Las Vegas.

'And this crowd will always shop as part of the trip, so restaurants and shops will benefit.'

She also said that with a brand-name operator, 'we'll be the only country in Asean with that high-end image'.

It would bring the rich and famous, en route to countries like Australia, she said, adding that Singaporeans and Asean visitors can do weekend trips.

Ms Ong Choon Fah, executive director of DTZ Debenham Tie Leung, however, cautioned that the development should be paced.

'We have to see if people have reached that level of lifestyle and are ready for such offerings.'

But the 'rustic element' of the southern islands is an edge that can be tapped to differentiate the project from other resorts in the world.

'For instance, Buddhist tourism can be developed on Kusu Island. The twinning of Sentosa and the southern islands have opened up many more possibilities,' she said. -- Additional reporting by Soh Wen Lin

YAY!!:D

lotsa new stuff recently :D 245 m apartments, extension of ewl and now this :D

I think a bridge would be better than using boats, make the bridges green, like ritzy avenues for the Rolls Royces and Bentleys to travel on.:D

Aiyoh....how come suddenly we want to see an island casino? Maybe it wil be cheaper to film the Unbeatables 4 now...:D

Originally posted by huaiwei

Aiyoh....how come suddenly we want to see an island casino? Maybe it wil be cheaper to film the Unbeatables 4 now...:D

This was pointed out by Neil Humphries, who lamented how Singaporeans passion for gambling overseas was putting revenue elsewhere when it made sense to have it at home! :cheers:

Originally posted by heirloom

lotsa new stuff recently :D 245 m apartments, extension of ewl and now this :D

There seems to be a new breeze over Singapore lately, not just in construction but in general becoming a place with real buzz! :dooby:

yes :D:D i dont know if i'm a little late or something but singapore, as if to make up for its slight lost in lustre in the business area, seems to have gained a certain ummm 'cool' (this is a gross word my vocab is limited) factor... it seems to be mentioned in almost every issue of the lifestyle bible wallpaper* ... mostly because of its restaurants :eat:

I'm not old, but I remember in the late 80s and 90s that Singapore was so different to what it is becoming today. I guess the shock of the recent economic downturn is making them really remake the way we look at things. And why not, we have a first class infrastructure in place and its time to really move up the ladder of truly dynamic cities!:guns1:

S'pore may allow a casino to open after all

Govt mulls over option as part of major resort, residential project

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-03-13/040313sentosa.gif

(SINGAPORE) In a major departure from its past thinking, the government may allow a casino on one of the southern islands to woo international talent, tourists and investments.

Expanding on Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's announcement on Wednesday to permit the sale of landed properties at Sentosa Cove to foreigners, Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo yesterday disclosed plans for a 500-hectare resort and residential development linking Sentosa by boat or bridge to the Southern Islands three kilometres away. The development is modelled on Atlantis on Paradise Island in the Bahamas, but Brigadier-General Yeo said it will be uniquely Singapore.

It will feature a comprehensive range of facilities including attractive beaches, hotels, private residential homes, marinas, sports complexes, convention centres, health spas, retail and food and beverage outlets. And it may include a casino.

'We are keeping an open mind on what to have in this development, including the possibility of having a casino,' BG told Parliament during the debate on his ministry's budget. 'What we envisage is an international facility separate from Singapore but accessible to all Singaporeans, with more relaxed rules to attract international talent, visitors and investments.'

If Singapore goes ahead with the casino, thus scrapping a long-standing ban, BG Yeo said the government will put in place control measures to limit its access to Singaporeans and to prevent organised crime.

Singapore now allows lotteries and betting on horse races but has repeatedly rejected suggestions for a casino, arguing that the social dangers outweigh the potential for profit. Taxes from lotteries make up a tenth of the government's $16.5 billion tax revenue, estimates Song Seng Wun, an economist at GK Goh Research.

'The government is persuaded that economic benefits from more government revenue may in some way give them more flexibility with the uncertain economic cycles these days,' he told Bloomberg News. 'This is one stone they're certainly turning.'

Observers say a casino may not only help maintain Singapore's position among the front rank of cities, but will also help provide jobs in an economy where the unemployment rate was close to a record high in the past year.

It will put Singapore in competition with Malaysia's casino run by Genting Bhd, Asia's largest publicly traded casino group by market value, and with gaming facilities in Macau.

On other fronts, Singapore is facing some new challenges from neighbours. BG Yeo singled out Thailand's attempt to develop oil trading to rival Singapore's.

'Thailand's value proposition is in part driven by the desire of the North-east Asian countries, which are highly dependent on oil shipped from the Middle East through South-east Asia, for greater energy security,' he said.

Singapore still has the edge. 'Oil trading, bunkering and refining are traditional strengths of Singapore,' BG Yeo said. 'Ships have called on Singapore for bunkering since the days of the steamship. Over the years, we have also built Singapore up to be the third biggest oil-trading centre after London and New York.'

Still, he cautioned, Singapore must watch its costs and continue to provide a global business-friendly environment. 'We are studying Thailand's moves and, where necessary, will respond to them in a timely manner.'

According to BG Yeo, Singapore's external space is expanding. Asean is integrating faster than expected and Singapore's links to China and India is also growing rapidly. At the same time, Singapore's free trade pacts are opening more opportunities.

'We must encourage more of our companies, especially our SMEs, and more of our young people, to venture overseas.'

BG Yeo said that if Singaporeans can make the breakthrough in their mindset and fan out from Singapore, the country's gross national product in 10 years' time will be significantly greater than its gross domestic product, which takes into account only income that arises within the geographical confines of the country but not income earned abroad as in the national measure.

13/3/04

hmmm......I find this development a bit more akin to that of Monte Carlo, Monaco rather than Atlantis at the Bahamas. ;)

You know....all the glitz and glamour stuffs with luxury crafts and cars! :D

Originally posted by Cliff

I think a bridge would be better than using boats, make the bridges green, like ritzy avenues for the Rolls Royces and Bentleys to travel on.:D

I can see that you have expensive taste! :D

You like British marques? ;)

Originally posted by szehoong

I can see that you have expensive taste! :D

You like British marques? ;)

Well, they are the only ones I could think of.
Maybe a Ferrari or Aston Martin could do for the younger billionares?:D

Or just give up cars altogether! Get a helicopter!!!:colgate:

i want a maybach! :colgate:

Oh ya! Maybach is good, I like how it stetches so long without becoming a strecth limo at the same time.

Actually, Maybach is better than Rolls Royce in terms of luxury, but of course in a Rolls, you are paying for the superior engine.

Just in case anyone is lost...
Maybach
http://www.libero.co.kr/upload/tmc_psd/maybach.jpg

Bentley
http://www.news.ai/ref/images/bentley.jpg

Rolls Royce
http://www.autosushi.com/images/reviews/autoshows/naias/2003/RollsRoycePhantom.jpg

really? hrmm better engine or better luxury... maybe i'll go with the rolls... more prestige? or is it maybach? hrmmm

oh no no i caste all that aside and go for the lancia thesis... i suddenly remember i've been really besotted with lancia lately... after accidentally discovering them...

http://www.autogazeta.com/g/414/Untitled-83.jpg

http://www.in.gr/auto/dokimes/pr_dokimes_in/Mercedes-Benz_E200_Kompressor/Big/in_Lancia_thesis_02.jpg

Why do you like it?
It looks like a Jaguar or even a Lexus.

At least Maybach has reclining seats, state of the art glass roof panels, tvs, etc.:)

Rolls and Bentleys are more for the brand I think, like you said, more prestige.

So if you want comfort, get a Maybach, if you want to hao-lian, get a Rolls.:D

Hmm...I wonder what is going to happen to the tranquil nature of our southern islands once this happens....I dont noe if I shd be happy or not! :bash: :D

Originally posted by Cliff

Why do you like it?
It looks like a Jaguar or even a Lexus.

Rolls and Bentleys are more for the brand I think, like you said, more prestige.

So if you want comfort, get a Maybach, if you want to hao-lian, get a Rolls.:D

That Lancia looks good, but I always thought they produced low-end European models?

Nothing beats a Rolls or Bentley as the ultimate symbol of luxury. Just the name itself is good enough. But that Maybach looks really sexy! Not seen any in sg..do they even sell it here?

Originally posted by huaiwei

Hmm...I wonder what is going to happen to the tranquil nature of our southern islands once this happens....I dont noe if I shd be happy or not! :bash: :D

Bleah. I bet most Singaporeans have not even set foot there. I take the optimistic view that we are maximising our limited resources to further extract revenue from them. Besides, theres always Pulau Ubin or that 'rubbish dump' :D

Originally posted by Cliff

Why do you like it?
It looks like a Jaguar or even a Lexus.

At least Maybach has reclining seats, state of the art glass roof panels, tvs, etc.:)

Rolls and Bentleys are more for the brand I think, like you said, more prestige.

So if you want comfort, get a Maybach, if you want to hao-lian, get a Rolls.:D


I am a fan of Maybach initially but when RR releases the looks of its latest offering - The Phantom.......I was mesmerized! :dizzy:

Maybach gives better creature comfort and state-of-the-art technology while the Rolls gives the person at the backseat a sense of importance with its large C-pillars and lounge seats. Not forgetting its back-dinged doors and the prestigeous brand! :D

As for Maybach....only the Maybach 62 offers the super luxurious reclining seat......not the Maybach 57 ( hope I got the model numbers correctly! :D ). The 57 model had a more 'basic' seat. The Maybach brand too spells luxury but it had been dormant for a very long time so it looses its lustre a bit. Maybach used to be the Rolls-Royce of Germany ;)


Just a lil Trivia: Did ya know that the Maybach models used to be developed for the Mercedes-Benz range before DaimlerChrysler decides to use the Maybach brand it already owned a long time ago? The Maybach model is supposed to be a notch higher than the current S-Class but then they finally decided to used a separate brand to project an ultra-luxurious alternative to rival Bentley and Rolls-Royce which are now owned by rivals Volkswagen and BMW ;)

Originally posted by RafflesCity

Bleah. I bet most Singaporeans have not even set foot there. I take the optimistic view that we are maximising our limited resources to further extract revenue from them. Besides, theres always Pulau Ubin or that 'rubbish dump' :D

Is that Kusu Island part of the development plan as well?

Huaiwei > Have you been to the Southern Islands? Are they tourist attractions now? :?

i dunno anything about lancia... but i just came across its website a few days ago and its got these really gorgeous futuristic retro looking vehicles that look as if they were from the set of gattaca... the lancia ypsilon is a small small car that looks so incredibly regal and is filled with luxury features that could rival ummm a luxury car :tongue2: maybe that's why i'm partial to the lancia thesis... btw i'm not religious or anything but the pope uses an absolutely gorgeous special lancia too :D

i dont think singapore really has the luxury of conserving too much nature... we really should leave such things to 'proper' countries with more normal land areas? i'mnot saying that the nature reserves here should be done away with, but ummm i think its ok to develop things like that.

Originally posted by szehoong

Is that Kusu Island part of the development plan as well?

Huaiwei > Have you been to the Southern Islands? Are they tourist attractions now? :? No I have never been there, which is prolly why I am a little aghast by the plans? :D

But I do noe from my studies here, that the southern islands is actually one of the last remining enclave of an extensive colony of corals. They are already coming under attack from nearby developments, and any development on the islands themselves will surely spell doom for our remaining natural treasure if considerations for their survival are not taken into account.

Its a classic case of development vs nature. Some letters to the Straits Times. I really feel this is a good time to reinvent Sentosa. Anyway huaiwei said that the greatest tragedy for Singapore was the settlement of mankind on it -_-

16/3/04

IN REFERENCE to the article, 'Top-draw resort for southern isles' (ST, March 13), I would like to enquire from the authorities what is being done to prevent 'further reclamation' from adversely affecting marine life in the Southern Islands.

As a diver and former student of coral-reef ecology at the National University of Singapore, I am concerned about the impact of sedimen-tation from reclamation and other sources on the marine life.

It would be a counter-productive effort if the marine life is adversely affected as a result of trying to develop the region for tourism.



LAM KOI YAU



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IF THE Government is really serious about making Sentosa into a world-class resort, it must be prepared to relocate the commercial vessel anchorage that is currently in front of the island.

This would remove the stench of diesel-oil fumes when the wind blows inland, and the quality of the surrounding seawater would improve.

Tourists will not be prepared to pay six-star hotel rates when their view out to sea is a clutter of oil tankers and rusting cargo ships.

The romance of a tropical island-paradise is sitting on the balcony and seeing no more than the occasional passing steamer, or sail on the horizon.


DEREK ROBINSON

Don't you guys have Casinos in Singapore? That would be so sweet if you didn't! I hate Casinos!!!

Originally posted by sOmeOne

Don't you guys have Casinos in Singapore? That would be so sweet if you didn't! I hate Casinos!!!

It has always been banned in Singapore due to the negative effects that a gambling lifestyle leads to. However this has simply caused many Singaporeans to go overseas or on cruises to use their casinos:D

Originally posted by huaiwei

No I have never been there, which is prolly why I am a little aghast by the plans? :D

But I do noe from my studies here, that the southern islands is actually one of the last remining enclave of an extensive colony of corals. They are already coming under attack from nearby developments, and any development on the islands themselves will surely spell doom for our remaining natural treasure if considerations for their survival are not taken into account.

well... considering the chorals hardly contribute to the economy - i dont think anyone would fly here to look at a few corals - they really shouldn't be 'national treasure'? there no no coral farms, or coral gardens, or any coral attractions at all...

Originally posted by RafflesCity

It has always been banned in Singapore due to the negative effects that a gambling lifestyle leads to. However this has simply caused many Singaporeans to go overseas or on cruises to use their casinos:D

well......casinos aren't far from Singapore.......there are those floating ones (cruise ships like Star Cruises) and a mere 4 hours drive to Genting Highlands. ;)

During Singapore holidays........there are more Singaporeans at Genting than locals! :D

......trust me seen that........7 out of 10 cars parked at Genting are Singapore-registered cars! :eek:

........haven't done any observation or counting aboard Star Cruises but I reckon it is that many too.....hehehe ;)

So having a casino or not......I don't think it would affect Singaporeans in general as gamblers would go all out to gamble wherever it is and I do not see any ill-effects of gambling in most Malaysians and Singaporeans (there are some but the numbers aren't significant) ;)

Interesting observation szehoong, and its all too true ;)

If your chips are down, you're out

17 March 2004

While casinos worldwide have just age and dress-code rules, casino here will likely bar less than well-off S'poreans

http://www.straitstimes.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-03-17/17sin.jpg

By Kelvin Wong and Goh Chin Lian

SINGAPORE'S casino, if built, will be one of a kind.

While a check with casinos in the region and around the world revealed that they have only age and dress-code requirements in general, Singapore's casino is likely to be off limits to less than well-off Singaporeans.

Only the well-heeled, or Singaporeans of a 'certain economic class' will likely get to punt at the proposed casino set in a world-class resort on Sentosa and the Southern Islands.

The move is aimed at guarding the pockets of Singaporeans such as the unemployed, housewives or retirees.

Both Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng made this point over the weekend, after the Government announced on Friday that it was open to the idea of having a casino here.

The safeguards could take the form of stringent membership criteria, for instance.

This would make the proposed casino quite different from those run elsewhere. Where memberships are required, they are usually given out at very little or no cost and solely for the purpose of identification.

Said a spokesman for the Australian Casino Association, Mr Chris Downy: 'Casinos are seen as entertainment complexes offering more than gambling, with restaurants and live entertainment. You don't have to gamble if you don't want to.

'But if people do, they are fully aware of the fact that they are making a conscious decision to gamble.'

In Singapore however, the position is different.

Said Brigadier-General (NS) Yeo: 'If you are not of a certain economic class, you should not even think of going there. You should confine yourself to 4D, Toto or horse racing.'

A recent Sunday Times poll showed that more than seven in 10 Singaporeans had courted Lady Luck at least once in the past year but betted a modest $57 on average a month. 4D and Toto were hot favourites among gamblers, about a third of whom said they did not bet more than $10 at a time.

This does not seem too far off from the stakes that small-time gamblers in casinos elsewhere play for.

Minimum bets for, say, blackjack, in a typical Australian casino could start from as low as A$5 (S$6).

For the high-rollers, there are the private or VIP rooms where bets could go up to the thousands or hundreds of thousands - a potential social vice, especially for those of lesser means.

When contacted, a Trade and Industry Ministry spokesman said that the inclusion of a casino as part of the proposed resort development remained a possibility under study.

'We will carefully study the social risks... If we eventually decide to go ahead with the casino, safeguards will be put in place, for example, measures to deter organised crime and restrictions on access by Singaporeans,' the spokesman said.

But not all punters here are persuaded by the social well-being pitch.

Ms H.L. Xie, 30, who works in the finance sector and gambled in London casinos when she was a student there, said: 'It is very unsavoury to restrict people according to their means. The Government should have faith that we are adults and that we know what we are doing.

'In any case, hardcore gamblers can still turn to other ways like illegal betting, which is worse.'

Cleaner S.F Lee, 56, for example, has gambled several times on an Indonesian cruise ship and in Genting.

Quoting a proverb in Mandarin, Mrs Lee argued that Singaporeans should be allowed to gamble at home.

'Why let others have the profits? Rich waters should not flow to foreign soil.'

But for fresh graduate Y.T. Teo, 26, the dangers of compulsive gambling are all too real. Mr Yeo had gambled every night while he was a student in Melbourne until he stopped two years ago.

'I know first-hand how addictive gambling can be, so I won't recommend it to anyone, rich or poor.'

Originally posted by RafflesCity




IF THE Government is really serious about making Sentosa into a world-class resort, it must be prepared to relocate the commercial vessel anchorage that is currently in front of the island.

This would remove the stench of diesel-oil fumes when the wind blows inland, and the quality of the surrounding seawater would improve.

Tourists will not be prepared to pay six-star hotel rates when their view out to sea is a clutter of oil tankers and rusting cargo ships.

The romance of a tropical island-paradise is sitting on the balcony and seeing no more than the occasional passing steamer, or sail on the horizon.


DEREK ROBINSON


I totally agree to that. Although I know Singapore is in shortage of land and sea space, I still think that to make Sentosa a world-class resort - commercial ships needs to be out of sight.

Sentosa used to be okay until the introduction of the bridge (which I think removed the charm of the 'island feel') and also the Asian Village or the World Showcase thingy. IMO the giant Merlion should be on the main island rather than in Sentosa because its towering presence somehow erases the charm of Sentosa.

I visited Sentosa many times - 1989, 1991 & 2000 .....and I was kinda dissapointed with my year 2000 trip with the above I've mentioned. But then again I am just another tourist and these are my personal opinion ;)

I hate the idea of joining the Sisters ,St. John's ,Lazarus and other islands together.I'd rather prefer that they'll create another island beside Sentosa and link it with a suspension bridge.

Those small islands are little gems ,pockets of tranqulity that we should preserve for the future generation to enjoy.

Originally posted by heirloom

well... considering the chorals hardly contribute to the economy - i dont think anyone would fly here to look at a few corals - they really shouldn't be 'national treasure'? there no no coral farms, or coral gardens, or any coral attractions at all... What a super horrible thing to say....since when is everything tied in with dollars and cents? :bash: :bleep: :rant: :devil: :mad:

Here is an EDUCATIONAL post for you about the wonders of our very own coral reefs!!! :rant: :D

Coral Reefs In Singapore

There were once over 60 offshore islands and patch reefs around Singapore, most of which were situated south of mainland Singapore. However, since the mid 1970s, major land reclamation was carried out on the mainland as well as the offshore southern islands. Most of the southern islands were reclaimed, adding 1695 ha to Singapore's total land area. Some islands were merged as a result. The reef flats of many islands e.g. Pulau Sudong, Pulau Hantu and Kusu Island were reclaimed right up to the reef slope. Many of the coral reef organisms were smothered by the reclamation, while others were severely affected by the resulting increase in water turbidity. Since 1986, most coral reefs in Singapore have lost up to 65% of their live coral cover

The high turbidity of our waters restrict light penetration and reef life ends at a depth of only 12m, marking the lower growth limit for hermatypic corals. Sedimentation rates ranged from 3-6mg/cm2/day in 1979. In 1994, these increased to 5-45mg/cm2/day (the higher value obtained from localised areas close to reclamation projects). This reduced visibility from 10m in the 1960s to 2m or less today. As a consequence, the reef is very compact, as opposed to reefs in clear waters, which can be found at depths of 20m and more.

Life on our reefs

Contrary to the belief that our reefs have been permanently devastated, they still support rich marine life. The reefs in Singapore harbour close to 200 species of hard corals from 55 genera, which given the size of the reefs and conditions present here, compare favourably with coral species richness in the more extensive reefs of the region. Singapore reefs sustain good diversity of other marine organisms too, such as gorgonians (Goh et al 1997) and nudibranchs. So far, 111 reef fish species from 30 families were also recorded.

The reef can be subdivided into several zones: the reef flat, the reef crest and the reef slope.

The shoreline gives way to the shallow reef flat that may vary in width and depth - at very low tides, some parts of the reef flat are exposed to air and direct sunlight. Here, scattered about are small colonies of boulder-shaped knob corals (Favia), maze coral (Platygyra sp.) and sponges of different colours. Pockets of sandy areas may be surrounded by lawns of large brown algae Sargassum sp. Bands of black sea urchins gather in large numbers. This level also marks the outer edge of the reef flat, which gives way to the reef crest.

Marine life on the reef crest is usually the richest - almost every type of coral is represented: the brain corals (Family Mussidae), bubble-corals (Family Caryophyllidae), pore corals (Family Poritidae), mushroom corals (Family Fungidae), cauliflower coral (Pocillopora sp), cave corals and disc coral (Family Dendrophyllidae), the table and staghorn corals (Acropora sp.), anemone corals (Goniopora sp)and many others. Living among these corals are many other marine animals. Deep purple-coloured sea anemones, with their symbiotic clownfish are a common sight. Crinoids (feather stars) are cryptic by day, and hide in coral crevices. Attached on the reef substrata are the sponges, sea squirts (tunicates), feather-duster worms and stinging hydroids. The other more mobile reef residents are the cowries, cone shells, nudibranchs, shrimps and crabs may be found in the crevices of the reef.

No other marine habitat supports such numbers or diversity of fishes as coral reefs. Most reef fishes adopt bright colouration, curious body shapes and habits. They not only add much vibrancy to the reef, but also are important contributors in almost all levels of the coral reef ecosystem. The most diverse and abundant fishes in Singapore reefs are the damselfishes (Family Pomacentridae) and wrasses (Family Labridae). Other common reef fishes are the copperband butterflyfish (Chelomon rostratus) and vermiculated angelfish (Chaetodontoplus mesoleucus).

Some of the reef fishes are economically important as food fish. These include the groupers (Family Serranidae), snappers (Family Lutjanidae), scads and trevallies (Family Carangidae).

As the upper reef slope gives way to the lower reef slope at about 7 to 8m depth, the density of marine organisms decreases. Coral boulders are scattered, separated by coral rubble, sand and silt. Occasionally, one comes across some sea urchins, crinoids, gobies, goatfishes and mushroom corals, the Neptune-cup sponges and brilliantly coloured sea-fans.

The sea floor of many reefs in Singapore is usually silty. Long sea whips and smaller sea fans are common. A few isolated colonies of corals still grow at these depths, but most of these are ahermatypic (do not possess symbiotic zooxanthellae), and hence able to colonise the darker parts of the reef.

Threats to Singapore reefs

http://coralreef.nus.edu.sg/images/notake.jpg

The most significant cause of reef degradation in Singapore is sedimentation. Land reclamation, dredging of shipping channels and dumping of earth spoils, have increased the sediment load. Loss of coral reefs to land reclamation occurred along the southwest coast of the mainland and on some of the offshore southern islands. Increased sedimentation affected the remaining reefs in two ways 1) by causing a slow but steady reduction in live coral cover 2) by reducing the lower depth limit of coral growth on reef slopes. Surveys since 1986 indicated that live coral cover decreased by up to 20% on some reefs, although other reefs registered no impact. The reduction in sunlight penetration reduced the lower depth limit of coral growth. In the 1970s, coral growth extended to 10m down the reef slope. Today, growth is restricted to 6m although some coral species still occur at the 8m depth.

Accidental oil spills remain as an ever-present threat. However the 1997 Evoikos oil spill (27,000 tonnes) did not seriously affect coral reefs, although oil contaminated the upper parts of some reef flats.

Other activities that also have an impact on the reefs include recreational and tourist-related use. Negligent or inexperienced divers without proper buoyancy control, leave a trail of broken corals. Anchor damage is caused by fishing boats and pleasure craft. At Pulau Hantu, a popular dive spot, courtesy mooring buoys were previously installed to prevent anchor damage.

The 1998 coral bleaching event

As with coral reefs around the world, Singapore reefs suffered a mass bleaching event in June 1998. Sea temperatures around Pulau Hantu and St John's were elevated by 1-2 deg C from March to June 1998. 50-90% of all reef organisms in Singapore were affected, particularly the hard corals, soft corals and anemones. The bleaching effect extended till 6m, the lower growth depth limit for coral growth locally. Sea temperatures returned to normal in August 1998. A study of the stressed colonies was undertaken during this period. 10 out of 35 coral colonies died from the stress, and the genera Sinularia and Euphyllia were most affected. Other colonies showed various signs of stress, such as growth of turf algae and silt accumulation, leading to partial mortality.

yea....since coral reefs in Singapore are reduced to a bare minimum, the more the reason to protect em! :okay:

but... there are so many in malaysia (arethere? i assume there are)... as i mentioned earlier.. a 660km2 country can barely afford to set side land for nature at the expense of economic development...

It will be interesting to see how all this pans out in the end:angel1:

Originally posted by heirloom

but... there are so many in malaysia (arethere? i assume there are)... as i mentioned earlier.. a 660km2 country can barely afford to set side land for nature at the expense of economic development... When i was younger, I used to care less about nature stuff. I keep wondering why they cant just remove all those silly mangroves and build nice seaside houses. I wondered wat those pockets of forests are for, when tall condos can rise there. And I wonder why all those land cant be reclaimed, since more land = more space.

That was until I realised mangroves were one of the most important zones for research, which can produce some of the most important uses for mankind, especially medicine, and they are actually nature's version of filters which help to remove pollutants. The forests turns out to be nature's airport hubs, housing countless migratory birds stopping over here to recharge for their next trip. And I realised in all those places where reclamation could have taken place, there resides millions of exotic organisms in seemingly useless and ugly mudflats, swamps, and reefs, which will all be lost forever even with a slight tweeking of their surrounding conditions.

Who ever said that Singapore dont have enough space as a justification of removing whatever nature we have left is trying to find the easy way out. why, for eg, are we still impossing a silly height constraint, when we dont constraint the destruction of nature? Why have hundreds of 12 storey flats, when a few more floors can mean saving that precious patch of green?

Because it is cheaper to chop the trees then to engineer a way to preserve them?

Gee.....I dont remember myself ever sounding so pro-nature, but I think my academic studies and the exposure I get with international friends through this forums is really begining to force me to open my eyes a little wider to what is missing around me?

maybe they should develop a coral reef resort then :D

how do you justify not losing the coral reefs for a potential um star attraction?

Corals are best left on their own. We dont need any form of resort to maximise their existance.

Tell me which one is easier.....building the resort elsewhere, or moving the coral reef?? ;)

what are the alternative locations?

Originally posted by heirloom

what are the alternative locations? They can have the Casino in Tampines for all I care...hahahaah!! :D

hhehe maybe changi airport would like to add a casino to its already extensive list of facilities...

Originally posted by huaiwei

When i was younger, I used to care less about nature stuff. I keep wondering why they cant just remove all those silly mangroves and build nice seaside houses. I wondered wat those pockets of forests are for, when tall condos can rise there. And I wonder why all those land cant be reclaimed, since more land = more space.

That was until I realised mangroves were one of the most important zones for research, which can produce some of the most important uses for mankind, especially medicine, and they are actually nature's version of filters which help to remove pollutants. The forests turns out to be nature's airport hubs, housing countless migratory birds stopping over here to recharge for their next trip. And I realised in all those places where reclamation could have taken place, there resides millions of exotic organisms in seemingly useless and ugly mudflats, swamps, and reefs, which will all be lost forever even with a slight tweeking of their surrounding conditions.

Who ever said that Singapore dont have enough space as a justification of removing whatever nature we have left is trying to find the easy way out. why, for eg, are we still impossing a silly height constraint, when we dont constraint the destruction of nature? Why have hundreds of 12 storey flats, when a few more floors can mean saving that precious patch of green?

Because it is cheaper to chop the trees then to engineer a way to preserve them?

Gee.....I dont remember myself ever sounding so pro-nature, but I think my academic studies and the exposure I get with international friends through this forums is really begining to force me to open my eyes a little wider to what is missing around me?

Yea.....I share the same sentiments too although I lived in Malaysia. I've seen Singapore's environment preservation first hand. I've been to Pulau Ubin and Sg. Buloh Nature Reserve as well as Bkt Timah. I dunno why but I've been to the Singapore Botanical Gardens 3 times!!! :D

Although Malaysia had abundance of virgin jungles and mangrove swamps......and with expertise in nature reserves and preservation.......efforts which are being recognised by UNESCO......we're still lacking in terms of environmental awareness amongst the people here.

A recent project by a private developer at an island just next to Westport, Port Klang decided to have a mangrove reserve with education and public awareness facility, similar to Sg. Buloh reserve. (it was specifically mentioned by the developer!).

So this shows that Singapore did the right thing on preserving the little that is left of a mangrove swamp and made it a showcase......and an educational tool too. In Malaysia, we had an abundance of protected mangrove swamps but most are inaccessable to the public so the Singapore way is something to ponder on. :)

The only time I've been to a mangrove swamp (and possibly the only one opened for public) in Malaysia are those at Kuala Selangor which its main attraction are fireflies. ;)

How to position Singapore's casino

A casino is good for business, but care needs to be taken over location, size, structure and operational details

By RONALD TAN


THE government's announcement last week that it may consider setting up a casino is great news for Singapore's tourism and hospitality industry.

Once this attraction is in place, Singapore will join the ranks of cities like New York (Atlantic City), London, Hong Kong (Macau), Sydney and Melbourne.

Many top-end visitors coming to Singapore on business have, thus far, missed out on what a casino can offer. We have some good attractions - the Kranji racecourse, the Esplanade, great hotels, good shopping, golf courses and restaurants. A casino complex will complete the loop.

If we get it right, a casino in Singapore can attain world-class status and will be a must-visit for those who enjoy a flutter, or even serious gambling.

Like most casinos worldwide, most foreign visitors should be allowed in. But in order to prevent social problems associated with problem-gambling at home, Singaporean patrons should be admitted on the basis of membership, after undergoing a character and/or means test.

This is the approach adopted by casino clubs in London, which are required to adhere to the UK Gaming Act. This Act also specifies stringent guidelines on credit facilities (to prevent over-gambling) as well as standards of training and conduct for staff running casinos, especially croupiers.

Over-gambling, in particular, can lead to severe social problems. It is also associated with loan sharks, drug-related and other underground activities. But with appropriate restrictions, these undesirable aspects can be minimised.

Tap private sector

While a government-linked company like Singapore Pools could invest in and operate a casino, private-sector participation should be welcomed. We could also invite one of the top casino operators in the region to provide technical assistance.

A casino must be capable of providing not only gambling facilities, but also entertainment and thrills.

Its benefits to society will be all the greater if it also has positive spillover effects. For instance, there could be a gaming tax, part of the revenues from which can go towards entertainment, both within the complex as well as outside - like towards the Esplanade to stage world-class shows.

Ordinary Singaporeans will thus be able enjoy such shows at more reasonable prices. A casino can therefore be of benefit to them too, even if they don't patronise it themselves.

What about location? This is an important issue. Many patrons will not like to island-hop to reach a casino. In the mid-1970s, when the Macau tycoon Stanley Ho opened a floating casino in Manila Bay, it was unpopular with security-conscious high-end patrons. Within two years, the casino was relocated back to shore.

Rather than make patrons island-hop, it would be prudent to locate Singapore's casino on Sentosa Island - possibly at the Cove itself, where patrons can arrive by car. If casinos elsewhere are a guide, many will demand easy access, via limousine.

Another question to consider is whether a casino should be aimed at attracting families with children.

Las Vegas learned the hard way with their introduction of children's attractions in the early 90s. Many parents found that it was unhealthy for their kids to mingle around poker machines and look at posters advertising adult entertainment.

Therefore, of late, many of these top casinos like MGM, Treasure Island and Luxor have changed course and dismantled their children's parks and rides.

However, Las Vegas is much more than just casinos and gambling. It is also the top convention city in the world that hosts over 200 top conventions annually. And it has an inventory of 130,000 hotel rooms, with occupancy rates of up to 90 per cent.

Go for big spenders

Singapore's casino should target top-end visitors, rather than families - more like Monte Carlo than like Las Vegas. Wealthy tycoons could fly into Singapore in their private jets, or in cruisers and enjoy a range of attractions.

A casino should also be welcomed by Singapore's private bankers, who will be able to tap into a bigger pool of high net-worth clients, thus boosting Singapore's importance as a global financial centre.

Developing a casino project in Singapore will require careful forward planning, which will be a challenge. When the casino at Genting opened its doors in 1971, it had 50 gaming tables and 200 hotel rooms. Today, it has over 500 tables and close to 8,000 rooms.

But both Starcity and Crown in Australia opened with over 300 tables each and today, with the intense competition, they face overcapacity problems.

We must also be mindful that casinos are sprouting all over the region with countries like Japan, Taiwan and Thailand planning to open them. Thus while it is heartening to see our government responding as well, much research will need to be done on location, size, structure, stakes and other operational details.

Singapore is fortunate to have businessmen who are familiar with the leisure industry and who have executed many high-class projects. Their help could also be sought in making Singapore's casino a reality.

The author is a businessman and consultant specialising in the leisure industry

Is state control of the casino really necesary?

S'pore's budget gamblers

Poll shows they bet about $57 a month, less than what they spend on movies and concerts

By Li Xueying

MOST Singaporeans gamble but not for high stakes. More than seven out of 10 Singaporeans gambled at least once in the past year, but they bet just $57.40 a month on average, according to a poll by The Sunday Times last month. This is less than the $70 they spend on movies, concerts and other recreational activities.

And much less than what they spend on drinking ($102.60) and smoking ($109.40), if you go by the last Household Expenditure Survey, although that dates from 1997-98 and 'sin' tax hikes may since have evened things out.

Singapore Press Holdings' research arm polled a representative sample of 851 Singaporeans for this picture of the typical gambler. He's a Chinese man in his 40s or older, has O-level qualifications, earns about $2,504 a month, lives in a HDB five-room or larger flat and has been indulging in gambling for nine years. His pet vice is 4D, the four-digit lottery. Toto is a close second, with Big Sweep third, horse racing a distant fourth and Internet gambling further behind.

If you take them at their word, Singaporeans seem, well, almost prudent in their gambling habits. Mrs Annie Ong, 44, a housewife, spends about $15 a week buying Toto or 4D when she shops at the FairPrice supermarket in Tampines. She usually bets on her sons' birthdays or lucky draw winning numbers. 'It's part of my daily routine. With small money, I may win big,' she said.

About 35 per cent claim they don't bet more than $10 at a time. Just 7 per cent own up to betting more than they can afford to lose, and as many admit spending more than they intend to. Only 3 per cent admit they have ever had to borrow money or sell valuables for money to gamble.

But consider the CID's recent account of three illegal moneylending syndicates handing out more than $1.5 million in loans a month. Gamblers would be typical loansharking customers.

While very few admit betting with illegal bookies or patronising gambling dens, the high-profile raids that busted illegal syndicates last September and November show that underground betting is very lucrative.

The people who were polled were interviewed face to face. Then, on their own, they filled out a separate questionnaire on their spending, winnings and attitudes.

Psychiatrist Tan Chue Tin who has gambling addicts among his patients thinks that mostly people just try their luck and may 'budget' for gambling. 'If they strike, they're happy. If not, it doesn't really matter because they have already put aside that money for it.' In other words, a routine and minor diversion.

The survey found that 29 per cent did not gamble last year. Many of those people, like retired teacher May Chua, may consider gambling as a vice to be curbed. Mrs Chua, who is in her 50s, said: 'The principle behind gambling is wrong because no one should be sitting around waiting for money they didn't work for to fall into their lap.'

Psychiatrist Lionel Lim is inclined to doubt the moderation of the survey's findings. 'My experience is that gamblers tend to downplay their behaviour and problems. Rarely do they state their true situation,' he said.

Official statistics reveal people here spent at least $7 billion on legal gambling last year. Singapore Pools said that Toto, 4D, Singapore Sweep and soccer betting turnover last year was $4.2 billion. The Turf Club's was $2.8 billion for horse-racing and 4D.

Assuming the population had been stable since the last Census in 2000, and excluding the under 15s and the 29 per cent who said they didn't gamble last year, that $7 billion would work out to about $8,500 for every punter. And that isn't minor at all.

Breaking the bank to woo Lady Luck

THE stake was just a mug of beer. At a pub with friends, Mr Tan bet on an English Premier League football match. Later, the stakes were upped to $10, then $50, then $100 'to make the game more exciting'. Soon, he was betting $500 a match and there were Champions League, German Bundesliga and Spanish La Liga matches, too. He started playing the stock market, buying shares on credit.

Within three years, he was $80,000 in debt and his habit split the family. 'I kept on and on, hoping for that big win that would cover my debts,' he said. His $70,000 credit with broking houses used up, he signed up for credit cards and overdraft accounts. At one point, the $3,000-a-month salary man held accounts with almost every bank here.

Since the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) started its community addictions management programme in 2001, 62 gambling addicts have checked in. Most addicts can't or won't admit they're addicted. One in five of the 607 people polled doubt they can give up gambling. But few may admit they are addicted.

Counsellor Patrick Teo said: 'When they lose, they blame it on family or bad luck. They think, 'If I stop gambling, there'll be no reward'. Hope of winning outweighs rationale and willpower.' When they don't gamble, they cannot sleep or eat. Most, if not all, gambling addicts are Chinese, said all five experts interviewed.

It's part of the Chinese culture, said Dr Brian Yeo. It's customary to gamble at Chinese New Year and punt on the Hongbao Toto draw, he said.

IMH treats a fair mix of high-ranking executives, stockbrokers, students and retirees, not just blue-collar pot-bellied uncles. They receive counselling, so that they recognise their habit as a problem, and are taught to change their lifestyle and control their emotions.

A relapse is always possible. Nobody knows this better than Mr Tan, who claims he no longer watches football or plays mahjong with friends. He said: 'The fear of falling again holds me back.' -- Li Xueying

Addicted? Call 6389-2389 for help.

FEWER BETTING ON HORSES

HORSE-RACING appears to have lost favour with Singapore gamblers. Just 5 per cent of people who took part in The Sunday Times poll bet on horses.

Other gambling activities which are unpopular: Online gambling (2 per cent), gambling in cruise-ship casinos (6 per cent), and soccer betting (11 per cent). When it comes to more-favoured gambling activities, the lotteries win hands down.

It's all a question of accessibility, said Dr Lionel Lim, a psychiatrist: 'With the lotteries, you just need to go to the kopitiam downstairs.' Psychiatrist Tan Chue Tin thinks online gambling has not caught on because some degree of computer literacy is needed. 'It's a very niche activity.'

Dr Lim added that Internet gambling is not a sociable activity, unlike other forms. 'You see friends queueing to buy Toto together and there is almost a carnival atmosphere.'

The barrier to soccer-betting is knowledge. 'One needs to know the game and have some appreciation of how it works,' said Dr Tan.

Why the casino rethink

Industry players say huge revenue generated is too good to pass up

By Tracy Quek

IF THE Government reverses its long-standing veto on casinos, economic considerations will be the likely reason, said leisure industry veterans.

Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo gave the first hint last Friday, when he said casinos may be allowed here. Plans to transform Sentosa and the Southern Islands into an international playground for the rich could include a casino, he told Parliament.

The potential revenue a casino could generate for the tourism and service sectors here could explain why policymakers are changing their minds about it, said tourism industry players.

Mrs Jannie Tay, managing director of watch retailer The Hour Glass, said a casino could reel in the rich. 'A lot of the rich and famous - whether from Europe, the US or around the region - like casinos... If Singapore has a classy one, they will come.'

Mr Francis Phun, chairman of the Association of Singapore Attractions, said that a decade or two ago, the main consideration was building up and sustaining manufacturing. But now, services are seen as the main creator of jobs.

In Macau, for example, about 60 per cent of the Macau government's revenue and 35 per cent of the territory's gross domestic product are generated by casino taxes, which totalled about HK$6 billion (S$1.3 billion) in 2001.

Gross annual revenue of Macau's casinos has ranged from HK$12 billion to HK$18 billion over the past 10 years.

Sentosa Leisure Group's chief executive, Mr Darrell Metzger, said another reason for the rethink could be that casinos have evolved from the shady establishments of 20 years ago to ones that focus on family fun.

'The casino will be just one of the many amenities people and their families will enjoy,' he said.

Back in 1991, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong told reporters that as long as he was PM, Singapore would have no casino here.

But last Friday, Brigadier-General (NS) Yeo pointed to the Atlantis resort on Paradise Island in the Bahamas as an indication of what is possible.

That has been rated one of the best family resorts in the world, said Mr Metzger.

Community and family groups, while worried about the social implications of a gambling hub here, were also mindful of the possible economic returns.

'If it's only for tourists, we could accept it as a boost to our economy,' Singapore Buddhist Lodge chairman Lee Bock Guan said in Mandarin.

Mr Patrick Chin, a church administrator and father of three young children, said: 'Having a casino here is part of Singapore opening up, you can't stop society from moving forward. Just like bar-top dancing, five years ago, no one would have thought it would be allowed here.'

But others remain staunchly opposed. Mr Edwin Choy, who co-founded the Centre for Fathering, said: 'Families have been ruined because of the gambling casinos encourage. The majority of gamblers lose most times, it's a lose-lose situation for the gambler and families.'

If your chips are down, you're out

While casinos worldwide have just age and dress-code rules, casino here will likely bar less than well-off S'poreans

By Kelvin Wong and Goh Chin Lian

SINGAPORE'S casino, if built, will be one of a kind. While a check with casinos in the region and around the world revealed that they have only age and dress-code requirements in general, Singapore's casino is likely to be off limits to less than well-off Singaporeans.

Only the well-heeled, or Singaporeans of a 'certain economic class' will likely get to punt at the proposed casino set in a world-class resort on Sentosa and the Southern Islands. The move is aimed at guarding the pockets of Singaporeans such as the unemployed, housewives or retirees.

Both Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng made this point over the weekend, after the Government announced on Friday that it was open to the idea of having a casino here. The safeguards could take the form of stringent membership criteria, for instance.

This would make the proposed casino quite different from those run elsewhere. Where memberships are required, they are usually given out at very little or no cost and solely for the purpose of identification.

Said a spokesman for the Australian Casino Association, Mr Chris Downy: 'Casinos are seen as entertainment complexes offering more than gambling, with restaurants and live entertainment. You don't have to gamble if you don't want to. But if people do, they are fully aware of the fact that they are making a conscious decision to gamble.'

In Singapore however, the position is different. Said Brigadier-General (NS) Yeo: 'If you are not of a certain economic class, you should not even think of going there. You should confine yourself to 4D, Toto or horse racing.'

A recent Sunday Times poll showed that more than seven in 10 Singaporeans had courted Lady Luck at least once in the past year but betted a modest $57 on average a month. 4D and Toto were hot favourites among gamblers, about a third of whom said they did not bet more than $10 at a time.

This does not seem too far off from the stakes that small-time gamblers in casinos elsewhere play for. Minimum bets for, say, blackjack, in a typical Australian casino could start from as low as A$5 (S$6). For the high-rollers, there are the private or VIP rooms where bets could go up to the thousands or hundreds of thousands - a potential social vice, especially for those of lesser means.

When contacted, a Trade and Industry Ministry spokesman said that the inclusion of a casino as part of the proposed resort development remained a possibility under study. 'We will carefully study the social risks... If we eventually decide to go ahead with the casino, safeguards will be put in place, for example, measures to deter organised crime and restrictions on access by Singaporeans,' the spokesman said.

But not all punters here are persuaded by the social well-being pitch. Ms H.L. Xie, 30, who works in the finance sector and gambled in London casinos when she was a student there, said: 'It is very unsavoury to restrict people according to their means. The Government should have faith that we are adults and that we know what we are doing. In any case, hardcore gamblers can still turn to other ways like illegal betting, which is worse.'

Cleaner S.F Lee, 56, for example, has gambled several times on an Indonesian cruise ship and in Genting. Quoting a proverb in Mandarin, Mrs Lee argued that Singaporeans should be allowed to gamble at home. 'Why let others have the profits? Rich waters should not flow to foreign soil.'

But for fresh graduate Y.T. Teo, 26, the dangers of compulsive gambling are all too real. Mr Yeo had gambled every night while he was a student in Melbourne until he stopped two years ago. 'I know first-hand how addictive gambling can be, so I won't recommend it to anyone, rich or poor.'

ELSEWHERE: ENTRY RULES

• In Australia: The Australian Casino Association, which counts brand names such as Star City in Sydney, Crown in Melbourne and Burswood in Perth as members, said that the only restriction casinos Down Under have is an age requirement of 18.

• In Britain: Membership is required to enter a casino. Punters or gamers will have to produce a passport to apply for one but it is usually free or goes for a token 10 (S$31) to 15. Casinos there also have a minimum age requirement of 18.

• In Genting: At Casino de Genting, a popular spot with Singaporeans, patrons have to be at least 21 and be dressed decently and neatly. That means no slippers or sandals.

Casino 'means testing' a bad idea

I READ with horror the statements of ministers George Yeo and Wong Kan Seng that if and when a casino resort is built in Singapore, only the well-heeled, or Singaporeans of a 'certain economic class', will be able to gain entry.

I am not an advocate of gambling and I am not writing in support of having casinos in Singapore. I am writing because this is the latest example of how the Government is not allowing Singapore society to mature beyond a nanny state where the government makes decisions on its citizens' behalf.

A cornerstone of the present-day success of Singapore is the concept of meritocracy, regardless of family wealth. Minister Wong is himself a shining example of this, having come from a humble background. That's such a wonderful testament to our meritocratic society.

The comments about having income thresholds for casino patrons, and the unrelated moves by the Ministry of Health to apply means testing for subsidised hospital wards are combining to nudge us towards a wealth-conscious, class-based society.

In effect, Singapore is being turned into a society where the size of your wallet will determine where you are permitted to go.

If you are rich, you are not allowed to stay in C-class wards. If you are poor, you are not allowed into the casinos. ('Rich' and 'poor' being defined by the Government, and it might be different for different purposes. There could well be a group that is deemed too rich to stay in C-class wards, but too poor to gamble.)

For the purpose of discussion, imagine the resulting scenario if we proceed down this path where the Government sets an income threshold for Singaporeans intending to visit the casinos. I, a Singaporean, would have to prove that I am worthy of entry while my friend, a Hong Konger, would not have to undergo such a humiliating test.

In fact, for ease of administration, separate entrances may be built at the casino entrance, for Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans.

This is discrimination, and we would become second-class citizens in our own country.

And what if it involves a group of Singaporeans? We could go to the casinos only with friends who also cross the income threshold. Friends of low-income would be left behind.

What about the stay-at-home mother who is not allowed into the casino, unlike her husband? (She heeded the call to have three children and she is staying home to care for them, while running a small break-even-only business on the side.)

Can we think of any country that applies a test on its citizens to determine their eligibility to enter restricted places? (I can think of one, but apartheid's been out of fashion for some years now.)

What I am objecting to is the application of an income test to determine access into a place, any place. Income testing may well result in the most unlikely bedfellows: hospitals and casinos.

If the authorities decide that a licensed casino resort is to be permitted in Singapore, then the accompanying social issues will just have to be tackled in a head-on, mature fashion.

If the authorities decide, on a balance of things, that the accompanying social ills far outweigh the projected economic benefits of a casino resort, then keep to the status quo.

At present, people who want to gamble simply head for cruise ships which go nowhere. There are no income checks and certainly no one deciding for them whether they are rich enough to gamble.

After the recent efforts by the Government to remake Singapore, it is disheartening that there are signs that the nanny-state mindset is still prevalent.

If the Government continues to make decisions on behalf of its citizens, we will never learn to make them for ourselves.


LOH LI-YEN (MS)

Govt is right to try and save gamblers from themselves

JUDGING from information provided in the article, 'Breaking the bank to woo Lady Luck' (The Sunday Times, March 14), the Government's decision to restrict punting in Singapore's casino - if it is built - to the rich, is a prudent one ('If your chips are down, you're out'; ST, March 17).

While we should have a casino here for reasons symbolic (to indicate that Singapore is opening up) and economic (to provide revenue for the tourism and service industries), the social implications of having a casino also need to be considered.

A recent survey showed that one in five people doubt they can give up gambling, and most addicts can't or won't admit they are addicted.

A counsellor said: 'When (the gamblers) lose, they think, 'If I stop gambling, there'll be no reward'. Hope of winning outweighs rationale and willpower.'

In another article, 'Why the casino rethink' (The Sunday Times, March 14), Mr Edwin Choy, who co-founded the Centre for Fathering, said: 'Families have been ruined because of the gambling casinos encourage. The majority of gamblers lose most times, it's a lose-lose situation for the gamblers and families.'

Because society and rules evolve gradually, a sudden policy change without safeguards may be too much, too fast, simply because people underestimate - or are unaware of - how addictive gambling can be.

Do Singaporeans have the discipline to stop? While I am sure most do, there are some who don't.

So we presently still need government regulation to save gambling addicts - blinded by greed at the gambling table - from themselves. It is truly sad to see people borrowing money from banks just to gamble.

Perhaps after getting used to a casino and the personal responsibility that it entails, there can be a gradual liberalisation of rules.

By considering building a casino, Singapore itself is taking a huge gamble. The stakes - the financial future of individuals and families - are indubitably high.

So it is better to take things slowly, with the understanding that this is a gamble that we - as a small country with zero natural resources - simply cannot afford to lose.



BENSON ANG WEIXIONG

What Home Minister said about casino proposal

MS LOH Li-Yen in her letter, 'Casino 'means testing' a bad idea' (ST, March 19), wrongly attributed to the Minister for Home Affairs the comment that only Singaporeans of a 'certain economic class' would be able to gain entry to the casino being considered for Singapore.

Mr Wong Kan Seng did not use the phrase 'certain economic class' when he commented on this at a constituency function on Sunday. The term was mistakenly attributed to him in the article, 'If your chips are down, you're out' (ST, March 17).

Mr Wong had said, in response to the media on March 14, that if there is to be a casino in the proposed international entertainment centre, law-and-order measures have to be put in place so that criminal activities and syndicates do not infiltrate our environment.

He also said that we have to ensure that people do not get into trouble where they borrow heavily and whittle away their life savings.

He added that one consideration could be casino membership and there could be some criteria worked out but 'these are details which are too early to comment on'.

ONG-CHEW PECK WAN (MRS)
Press Secretary to Minister for Home Affairs

Why no 'free for all' casino

S'pore wants a slice of high-end tourism pie, but not the crime, sleaze - and social ills - linked to gambling, says minister

By Rebecca Lee

TRADE and Industry Minister George Yeo yesterday defended the Government's plan to impose entry restrictions on Singaporeans if a casino is opened here.

At a dialogue with Bukit Batok constituents, Brigadier-General (NS) Yeo explained the Government changing its stance in disallowing casinos here when a resident asked how it would ensure the casino not erode social values.

'For a long time, the Singapore Government has said that it will not have casinos in Singapore. The reasons are very clear to us: Gambling can be addictive.

'If husbands go there after work, housewives go there and gamble with their family money - the money that is intended for the kitchen and to look after the house and their children - then there will be problems,' he said.

But globalisation and the desire to ensure Singapore remains a draw for wealthy visitors prompted the Government's rethink.

'While we want to attract international gamblers, wealthy people to come here, I don't think we want to encourage Singaporeans to go and patronise the casino when they cannot afford it,' he said.

The world is changing.

Many Singaporeans already go to Genting, on weekend cruises to nowhere and to Batam to patronise casinos. China, for instance, is opening Macau up to international gambling to make it the Las Vegas of Asia.

'All the top companies in Vegas will be there. It will change the tourism map.'

Singapore wants a slice of the action, which was why it plans to link Sentosa with the Southern Islands to develop a world-class resort that may include a casino.

But the Government is conscious of the social ills linked to gambling.

'We don't want to be a Las Vegas, we don't want to be a Macau, we don't want to have the crime and the sleaze.'

Emphasising that the Government had not yet decided whether a casino would be opened on Sentosa, he said that if there were one, there will be controls in place to ensure that ordinary Singaporeans do not go there and gamble away their 'family money'.

It has not decided what these controls are and is studying what is practised in other countries.

BG Yeo made it clear that this will not be a blanket ban on Singaporeans, but more likely one where only members are allowed in.

Unconvinced, a resident asked about the seeming contradiction in the Government's plan to limit Singaporeans' access when it acknowledged people already go to Batam to gamble.

BG Yeo said the Government cannot stop people who choose to go outside the country to gamble, but it will not make it easier for them by making a casino accessible at their doorsteps.

'We can't say that since we can't stop it, we will make it easier, then why don't we have one in Bukit Batok East? Have it in the neighbourhood centre,' he said to laughter from the residents.

The dialogue capped the minister's walkabout yesterday when he kicked off a soccer match, launched the Bukit Batok East Youth Adventure Club, and officiated at the completion of the Hoover Park Estate Upgrading programme.

A Singapore casino may create 1,000 jobs



A casino opening here could trigger an annual jackpot of anything from US$235mil to US$335mil in spin-offs for the operators alone – as well as help create up to 1,000 jobs. This is based on the US experience.

The possibility of Singapore having a casino was broached early this month by Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo.

Since then, the project – to be sited in Sentosa – had been the focus of much industry interest, especially within the leisure and gaming industry, the Singapore Business Times reported.

All agree that it is a big business here although many differ on how big it is.

As a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP), America’s US$28.2bil to US$40bil legalised casino industry would translate to an equivalent US$235mil to US$335mil in Singapore.

A February research report by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis on the economic impact of the casino industry in the United States estimates that America's gaming industry exceeded US$40bil in revenues in 2001.

This figure includes revenues from the so-called Indian casinos, sited on Indian reservation land and which traditionally pay no state taxes, which chalked up nearly US$13bil in 2001.

Private corporate casinos generated a further US$27bil the same year. The American Gaming Association (AGA) – the US gambling industry’s self-regulation body – estimates that casino revenues exceeded US$28.1bil in 2002, the latest year for which figures were available from the AGA.

Its estimate was corroborated by a similar study published last October of US corporate casino revenues by industry analysts, The Innovation Group, which placed revenues at about US$28.2bil in 2002.

The economic impact of the industry is not limited to the immediate revenues from operating the casinos.

For example, the famous “Strip'' area of Las Vegas, Nevada, houses 47 casinos with 14 more in downtown Las Vegas.

More than 3,300 gaming tables and 75,000 electronic slot machines take up 3.3 million sq ft of prime commercial space, generating millions in annual rental yields for owners of the prime commercial property that houses the casinos.

An AGA study published last year said that at the state level the 249 casinos in Nevada (which includes Las Vegas) contributed US$9.4bil in revenues in 2002 and paid US$718.7mil in taxes to the state government.

This is based on a minimum rate of 6.25% tax on gross gaming revenues with additional levies imposed by municipal authorities in the state.

The casino industry also paid out more than US$6bil in wages to the almost 192,000 people that it employed in the state.

In the Singapore context, this could work out to almost a thousand jobs.

The spill-over effects on other sectors like hotels and hospitality are also considerable.

Over 35 million visitors are attracted by the casinos and other associated attractions in Las Vegas each year, enough to fill more than 100,000 hotel rooms.

In Singapore, the size of the overall gambling-related sector is significant.

Song Seng Wun, an economist at GK Goh Research, had previously estimated that taxes from lotteries make up a tenth of the government’s S$16.5bil tax revenue.

The legalised gambling industry here is big business with other unexpected benefits.

Singapore Pools and the Totalisator Board financed about two-thirds of the more than S$600mil-plus cost of the Esplanade, better known here as The Durian.

Sentosa Cove invites tender for 5-star marina construction, seeks professional operator

16 April 2004

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/imagegallery/store/phpUtZDyo.jpg

SINGAPORE : Sentosa Cove could turn out to be the Monaco of the East.

The up-market oceanfront homes being built on the island will have berths for 240 boats and 10 mega yachts right at the doorstep.

And just across the waterway - there may be a casino.

A multi-million dollar tender has been called for a five-star marina to be built at the cove.

Sentosa Cove is looking for what it calls a "smooth operator" to run its marina and clubhouse.

Mr Bernard Kong, CEO of Sentosa Cove, said: "The deciding factor is not just price alone but an overall package of business plan coupled by the way this marina is going to be run and managed. We are looking for an experienced operator with the five-anchor rating."

Some $20 million has already gone into the infrastructure, and Sentosa Cove hopes to see a bid of many times this amount.

Catering to the well-heeled, the natural marina will be the only sheltered facility which can berth up to ten 80-metre luxury yachts.

These will be kept fully-serviced and crewed for their owners.

Nearby, construction is about to begin on 18 bungalows, three terrace houses and a condominum which have already been sold.

They are part of the 2,600 homes which will eventually line the cove.

Another 600 homes are expected to be put up for sale in early May, and foreigners will be allowed to buy landed property.

Mr Darrell Metzger, CEO of Sentosa Leisure Group, said: "It will appeal to a lot of the upmarket and also to the tourists who want to see what this new resort is and what Sentosa is.

"We have several hotels opening here so the entire complex, integrated resort of Sentosa is going to be of the critical mass that can compete with the Dubai and Hong Kong type of products that are coming out of the market."

A world class marina, waterfront housing - ingredients for the posh lifestyles of the rich and famous.

It is expected that in a year or so, developments will follow in the Southern Islands nearby, where a resort will be built, plus a possible casino.

The Government is banking on Sentosa Cove and the nearby Southern Islands to put Singapore on the international leisure map. - CNA

wow already sold? dont even know what they look like!

Many tenders for sites had been submitted ,now the tender for the Marina has started.

Expect lots of development in the next few years.Post them all here!;):D

There is a thread just on Sentosa Cove here lah....http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=70389

Aiyoh ,can seperate all of them or not.

Very confusing leh ,Sentosa ,Casino ,Resort ,Developments and Cove projects all in one?

That's the main reson we have so few threads.:D

The entire southern islands development is a coordinated project, including the casino, which may be on any of the islands there. Why should we have one thread for each island?

Why do you have this fetish for having so many threads??

Own a mega-yacht? Sentosa wants you

By Daryl Loo

IF YOUR'RE one of the super rich and own a multi-million-dollar mega-yacht, Sentosa wants you - to park your boat at its new marina.

Yesterday, it put up a plot of land for public tender to build and operate the Sentosa Cove Marina.

To be ready by 2007, the $20 million marina will be able to accommodate up to 240 boats, including 10 luxurious mega-yachts that cost at least $8 million each.

It will be located on the eastern tip of the island within Sentosa Cove, where an initial 22 residential land parcels were put up for tender last December.

The marina is expected to complement the 2,600 homes, including bungalows, terrace houses and condominiums, that will be built within the enclave.

Interested investors and developers, including some local players, have already made inquiries, said Sentosa Cove chief executive Bernard Kong at a press briefing yesterday.

But will the investment pay off, given that two of the four marinas here have run into financial difficulties?

Ponggol Marina was sold by its creditor last May after it could not pay off debts of $18 million. It was then renamed Marina Country Club and Resorts by its new owners, PM Marina.

Raffles Marina in Tuas could not repay $45 million to DBS Bank and had to have its loan restructured, also in May last year.

Mr Kong felt Sentosa Cove Marina would be able to set itself apart from others in the region by positioning itself as a destination for larger luxury boats.

'There are no other marinas in South-east Asia that specialise in mega-yachts,' he said.

Singapore's political stability and security would also be plus points, he said.

According to boat dealers, there are at least 10 mega-yacht owners in the region, and over 3,000 worldwide.

The attraction of mega-yachts - boats that are longer than 120ft (or 36m) - is the range of potential spin-offs, Mr Kong said.

For instance, the boats require a lot of fuel and are run by big crews. Their owners tend to be big-spending corporate types or business tycoons. All this could translate into big bucks for Sentosa.

To cater for these rich travellers, two pieces of land for a clubhouse and a tennis annexe are included in the marina tender. The entire site will be let out on a 30-year lease.

Tenders for the marina close on July 9, and an operator will be picked before the end of the year.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-04-17/h6a.jpg
When completed in 2007, the $20 million Sentosa Cove Marina will be able to accommodate up to 240 boats, including 10 mega-yachts. -- STEVEN LEE

I can imagine in future it would look so idyllic with all those sleek and sexy yachts berthed there with the skyline in the background :cool:

And you can jump into your own boat and flee for any reason.....hehehehe :sly:

Perhaps, but not likely to be successful with our coast guard?

What is there is a terrorist attack? (Touch wood) :D

Casino decision in 6 to 9 months

Govt to choose if ban should go after careful study

By Laurel Teo

THE Government will decide in about six to nine months whether it will allow a casino here, after wide consultation and careful study of its social and economic implications.

Minister of State for Trade and Industry Vivian Balakrishnan told Parliament yesterday that the casino consideration was targeted at tourists, as part of a strategy to broaden Singapore's tourism offerings.

'At one end of the spectrum, budget airlines will make air travel cheaper for which we need to build more two- and three-star hotels.

'At the other end of the spectrum, we must be able to attract our share of the rich and famous for which casinos might be an attraction.'

Steps would be taken to shield 'more susceptible' Singaporeans, he added, a point he reiterated a few times to reassure members of the House in question-and-answer time.

Among the six MPs who spoke, the main concerns were the social ills that gambling could bring and if a casino was an absolute must-have here to boost the economy.

The possibility of a casino here has stirred a public debate, after it was first raised by Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo last month.

During the Budget Debate, he revealed plans to link Sentosa with the Southern Islands to develop a world-class resort that could include a casino for the well-heeled.

Yesterday, MP Irene Ng (Tampines GRC) asked what factors would lead to having a casino and when that decision would be made.

Dr Balakrishnan's reply: 'The decision will be made hopefully in the next two or three quarters. I cannot be more definite about that.'

But he dismissed as 'speculation' reports of any formal negotiations or consultations with casino operators.

While the Government has long been averse to having a casino because of potential ill effects on society, it is now considering reversing the ban 'because of the rapidly changing tourism landscape in the region', he said.

Batam already has casinos, while Thailand is also considering new laws to allow them, even as billions of investment dollars are pouring into Macau to make it the Las Vegas of the East, he said.

Faced with such competition and the rapidly growing affluence in Asia, 'we have to upgrade and broaden our tourism product offering'.

He said the earlier social concerns remained valid, stressing that the Government would carefully study regulations in other countries.

Many of these do not allow their own citizens free access to casinos, he said, pointing out more stringent standards in South Korea and Monaco, where no locals at all are allowed to enter.

MPs remained concerned as one after another rose to air their worries.

Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC) asked if the Government's study would include the impact on families and the debt situation here, while Nominated MP Braema Mathi wanted more research on gambling-related vice rings involving prostitution and drugs.

Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC) questioned if the ministry had explored options besides a successful tourist resort.

NMP Ngiam Tee Liang, meanwhile, asked for a firm estimate on how much dividends - in terms of the growth in revenue and jobs - Singapore would earn from such an investment.

Dr Balakrishnan reassured them that the Government would study all implications.

The casino was just one out of many proposals under consideration, and one which it would not adopt out of 'a panic reaction'.

He added: 'I think, if we adopt this in our usual, in our uniquely Singaporean manner of being pragmatic, realistic and sensible about it, we might be able to fashion a win-win solution, although that's not typical of gambling.'

Casino concerns

Reflecting the ongoing public debate over the pros and cons of having a casino here, MPs rose to air several concerns, from the social ills to the economic benefits gambling could bring. Minister of State (Trade and Industry) Vivian Balakrishnan stressed that the Government will consider all implications carefully and consult widely

Strong views over different treatment of locals

'Given these readily available alternatives, with the indications that there may be a different treatment of Singaporeans versus non-Singaporeans... that has aroused a lot of passion among several groups of Singaporeans.'
- Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast GRC)

Hard to shield Singaporeans from social ills

'I find it hard to be persuaded that we could insulate Singaporeans if you have a casino for foreigners only. Since it also involves creating jobs, therefore Singaporeans would have to go to the casino to work... There will be social implications...'
- Miss Irene Ng (Tampines GRC)

Figures for revenue and job creation?

'I was just wondering about the potential revenue impact to the Government and the potential job growth rate... Do we have estimates of that to see whether we really are talking of a sizeable potential investment that has a lot of benefits for Singaporeans?'
- NMP Ngiam Tee Liang

Is this the final resort?

'Is a casino operation a fundamental element of a successful resort of the tourism industry, and has the minister or the ministry explored other possible models before we... allow casinos in Singapore?'
- Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC)

What about those in debt and their families?

'Would the study that the ministry will be conducting also include the study on the social implications of having such a casino, in particular Singaporeans' indebtedness and how that will affect families?'
- Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC)

Focus on tourism market

'Our objective, if at all we do embark on this, is to address the tourism market... As far as our local population is concerned, our chief preoccupation has been and remains the social impact of gambling on some susceptible members of our population.'
- Dr Balakrishnan

I was doing a search on yahoo moments earlier...and i got a shock....

Do you guys know we were quoted here?

http://www.wildsingapore.com/sos/sayssc.htm

How embarrasing for me! I dont know how the rest of you think! :D

haha...you guys look good :D
Probably they will continue quoting again?

Aiyoh!

I feel its great that what we discuss here is deemed informative enough to be quoted but some of the other stuff is ridiculous! :D

Seems we have lots of lurkers here reading through the posts...:sly:

Casino projected to plug $1.7b leak overseas

That's the amount locals spend in foreign casinos yearly, say analysts; proposed facility also a boost to convention sector

13 May 2004

By Glenys Sim

SINGAPOREANS spend close to US$1 billion (S$1.7 billion) a year in foreign casinos and having one here will not only plug this leak, but also give the convention industry a boost.

The figure was cited by Dutch bank ABN Amro and a United States-based gaming and leisure consulting company, The Innovation Group, at an industry conference yesterday.

Experts at the two-day conference said that most of the money now ends up in casinos in Genting, on cruise ships and in Batam.

Pointing to Las Vegas as an example, Mr Sean Monaghan, the director of gaming and wagering research in East Asia and Australasia at ABN Amro, said that casinos support the convention and exhibition industry there.

'People attend conferences in the day and there are usually no programmes lined up in the evenings, so going to the casino at night is another activity for them.

'Singapore needs the infrastructure to support its convention and exhibition industry; otherwise, it might lose its market share,' he said.

The unregulated gaming industry in East Asia is estimated to be worth US$13 billion.

Besides yielding significant revenue for governments in the region, there are other benefits to legalising the gaming industry like increased tourism and job creation, said Professor Alex Blaszczynski, the director of the gambling research unit at the University of Sydney.

Experts at the inaugural Asian Gaming Expo, which ended yesterday, admitted that social problems could arise as a result of legalised gaming, but said safeguards could be put in place.

Governments must have educational support and treatment in place, said Professor Andy Nazarechuk of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, a gaming consultant. 'This means highlighting the problems that might surface for some of the punters and, for example, setting up a hotline for people to call if they need to seek help.'

Mr David Green, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers Macau's Gaming Practice, added that governments also need to have a regulatory framework in place, including anti-money laundering, anti-corruption and gaming credit laws as well as a sound tax regime.

In the region, Macau is currently expanding its gaming operations, while the Philippines is pushing for legislation that would allow joint ventures with foreign casino operators.

South Korea hopes to increase the number of casinos locals are allowed to enter. There is now only one casino there which admits Koreans.

Singapore is currently studying the possibility of setting up a casino on Sentosa. Elsewhere, legislation permitting gaming is expected in Thailand, Japan and Taiwan by 2008.

Business Times - 13 May 2004

But govts must be clear why they want to develop the industry

By TEH SHI NING

(SINGAPORE) Gaming consultants say another casino in South-east Asia is feasible, but governments looking to develop the industry must be clear about why they want to do so.

There is potential demand for gaming, Scott Fisher, managing director of a US gaming and leisure consulting firm, said at the Asian Gaming Conference yesterday.

For instance, annual average earnings in Singapore - US$22,820 in 2003 - are comparable to those in Australia and Hong Kong, where there is strong gaming demand.

But Bill Eadington, director of the institute for the study of commercial gaming at the University of Nevada, raised questions he said governments must answer: 'Are we doing it for fiscal purposes, to support the financial status of the government?

'Or economic ones, to attract foreign investment, create jobs, stimulate a particular region? Or is it to be a catalyst for a more attractive tourism or convention industry?'

Prof Eadington said casinos cannot be allowed merely because consumers want them.

'The gaming industry has very significant perceived or real externalities and has to be heavily constrained, sometimes to an extent inconsistent with the open marketplace's wishes.'

This raises another challenge that Asian governments must meet - establishing stable and transparent regulations to support the gaming industry.

Prof Eadington said stable rules and regulations are not only the key to 'weeding the bad guys out, but also ensure that you attract players who are as keen to go by the law'.

But David Green, a partner of PricewaterhouseCoopers Macau's gaming practice, pointed out: 'You can have a most pristine set of rules but a corrupt policing force, and the enforcement function becomes the Achilles heel of the system.'

Other issues governments must tackle include harm minimisation to combat pathological gambling and how to handle excess profits or corrupting competition.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

it will be very expensive to buy these bungalow.!

MAY 15, 2004

THE article, 'Casino projected to plug $1.7b leak overseas' (ST, May 13), is the latest salvo in a series of media reports that seem to be pushing for developing a casino in Singapore.

A casino, we have been reminded, is a multi-billion-dollar growth industry. Setting one up will help Singapore generate more money and, at the same time, reduce funds being spent overseas by Singaporean gamblers.

The case for a casino, at the bottom line, is economics. No one has addressed, nor has the press carried, other critical issues which should be of equal, if not of greater, concern to Singapore.

What kind of society do we want Singapore to be, which Singaporeans can be proud of? Is this a society which will continue to value hard work, generosity, altruism, honesty, communitarian spirit, trustworthiness, respect, justice, integrity, and where our citizens are interested in the welfare and well-being of their neighbours?

Economic consideration, I concede, is important but it must not be allowed to have a decisive say in organising a society or shaping a societal value system. If growth industries are all we are concerned about, producing weapons of mass destruction is a growth industry. Prostitution is a growth industry. Poppy cultivation is a growth industry. Money-laundering is a growth industry.

We are not into such industries perhaps because we do not want to be ostracised, but, more so, I want to believe, because we know they are not right and endorsing such industries, even if they will bring in billions of dollars, will send wrong signals about the kind of people we are.

Let others have their casinos if they want to have them. Singapore will not go bankrupt if we do not have a casino or if Singaporean gamblers want to waste their money overseas.

There are other ways to create wealth and generate jobs which will not compromise our desire to hold dear to time-tested values which will foster social cohesion and a flourishing society.

DANIEL KOH KAH SOON

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

MAY 15, 2004

ON A recent visit to Batam, I discovered that there are three casinos operating in different parts of the island.

Most of the patrons are Singaporeans, judging from the way they speak. Their visits there, as I discovered, have contributed to the island's economy. The ferries that ply between Singapore and Batam benefit from the increased load; taxis on the island pick up more passengers; restaurants and food centres are more crowded; salons do a brisk business; shopping malls are a hive of activity; hotel occupancy rates go up; retail shops are doing great, the list goes on.

The economy, to say the least, is thriving.

I applaud the Batam Authority for taking this bold move to inject life into its economy. Rules barring locals from the casinos seem to work too as uniformed security personnel stopped my Indonesian wife at the door.

I spoke to a casino patron on the ferry ride home; she told me she spent more money on food, facials, reflexology and shopping than the $200 she lost at the blackjack tables.

Clearly, Batam was right in having the casinos. On a larger scale, Singapore could also benefit should we follow the same route.

AZMI ADNAN

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Mr Daniel Koh is using the casino as a boogy man to blame all social ills on?

Mr Daniel Koh is using the casino as a boogy man to blame all social ills on?

Well that's his view......:D

Ok...some people consider gambling as an "evil." I wonder how they consider those who do investments. How about those who get a job? It is a gamble for money too.

I understand why we are so averse to the idea of gambling abuse, but I am of the opinion that it is good. If our society is matured enough, it dosent need the garmen to tell them whether to gamble or not.

Ok...some people consider gambling as an "evil." I wonder how they consider those who do investments. How about those who get a job? It is a gamble for money too.

I understand why we are so averse to the idea of gambling abuse, but I am of the opinion that it is good. If our society is matured enough, it dosent need the garmen to tell them whether to gamble or not.

We actually "gamble" a lot in life.....every choice we make is a "gamble".....

It seems many still think that they need "protection" from the government....I think it's time they learn to think for themselves and make choices of their own........

Precisely.....let the people decide. This is the way a maured society should be run. I almost fainted when the govt said they would "control" the patronage of the casino.,...

Precisely.....let the people decide. This is the way a maured society should be run. I almost fainted when the govt said they would "control" the patronage of the casino.,...

No wonder ppl say we are a nanny state..... :bash: :bash:

No wonder ppl say we are a nanny state..... :bash: :bash:
Mama I want milk!!!

i think they should - i dont think singapore is a mature society yet. maybe in another 20 or 30 years... there is still the lingering presence of behaviour from the 50s and 60s...

Mama I want milk!!!

I'm sure they will give it to you....but hey...this sounds like sour milk.....:D

Published May 15, 2004

They're willing to come in big if regulatory, tax policies are right

By VIKRAM KHANNA

(SINGAPORE) The giants of the global gaming industry consider Singapore an ideal location for a casino complex in Asia and are prepared to pour in investments that could top US$1 billion for each resort if regulatory and tax policies are conducive.

In a series of interviews with BT over five days, major players in the casino industry, regulatory experts, Nevada state government officials, and gaming industry consultants in Las Vegas welcomed the news that Singapore is considering opening up to the casino business.

'When we read about Singapore opening up, we sent letters to the appropriate people in the government there saying that if and when such a potential transaction transpires, we would be most interested in participating,' said J Terrence Lanni, chairman and CEO of MGM-Mirage, one of the world's largest gaming corporations.

MGM-Mirage controls 12 casino-resorts, including the MGM-Grand, The Mirage, and what is arguably the most upscale resort in the world, The Bellagio, in Las Vegas.

The NYSE-listed company, which posted revenues of US$3.9 billion last year, also has operations in three other US states, the UK and Australia.

Mike Stirling, senior vice-president for international operations at Caesars Entertainment, which controls Caesar's Palace and 28 other properties spread across four continents, said: 'If Singapore continues to be what it has been - open, crime-free, forward-looking and run with integrity - then I can't think of a better location in Asia for the casino business.'

Both MGM-Mirage and Caesar's already maintain marketing offices in Singapore - and across Asia - to attract local high-rollers to their resorts. Both indicated that if they were to set up resort operations in Singapore, they would want to list them on the SGX in the interests of transparency.

Asked what the Singapore government might do to attract major players, a comprehensive gaming regulatory regime was at the top of the industry's wish list. 'A highly regulated situation is most important to us, because if we didn't have that in any jurisdiction, it could potentially jeopardise our gaming licences in other jurisdictions,' said Mr Lanni.

Regulations covering the gaming industry in Nevada are stringent and cover thorough background checks - including detailed personal financial audits - on directors of gaming companies, plus a range of internal controls. There are fines and other penalties for violations, including the revocation of licences.

Moreover, gaming licences are interdependent; if a company violates regulations in, for example, Macau (or if regulations there are improperly designed or enforced) this can jeopardise its licences in Nevada and elsewhere. 'For these companies, losing a gaming licence is the biggest risk,' said Michael Rumbolz, former chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, and now a consultant who has helped in designing and implementing gaming regulations in Australia, Europe and North America.

Major gaming companies - which, decades ago, were funded by the underworld - are now closely monitored listed entities which rely on equity and bond markets for their capital.

Mr Rumbolz and other officials advised that if Singapore permits gaming, it would be best to adapt Nevada's legislation.

'Nevada's gaming rules and laws are like the ten commandments. They are a treasure. It would take anyone else decades to come up with them,' said Lorraine Hunt, Nevada's Lieutenant Governor, who is the second highest elected official in the state after the governor. 'We hope we can share our experience with Singapore and build a partnership,' she added.

Second to the regulatory regime on industry players' list of concerns was the tax regime, which they said should be conducive to capital investments. Gaming tax rates are typically inversely related to the number of licences allowed - the fewer the licences, the higher the tax rates. The regime in Nevada allows for an unlimited number of licences (provided regulatory conditions are met) with a tax rate of 7 per cent of gross gaming revenue. This moderate rate has permitted large capital investments to take place.

By contrast, some other jurisdictions like Michigan and Illinois limit the number of licences to a handful and levy high taxes (22 per cent in Michigan). Industry players point out that this has prevented major investments in these areas.

'It would take US$2.5 to US$3 billion to replicate just The Bellagio,' said Mr Lanni. 'This property could not exist in an Illinois or a Michigan.'

'So if there are going to be, say, three licences issued on Sentosa island, that would make for a high rate of tax. If you really want large foreign investments, you would let the number of licences be determined by the market, with companies permitted to decide on what level of investments to make. Then you could also have a lower tax rate, because you'll have multiple licences and multiple facilities.'

Most experts suggested that permitting multiple players, combined with moderate to low tax levels, would produce the greatest economic benefits for Singapore.

Mr Rumbolz recommended three key steps on entry policies:

'One, permit only publicly listed gaming companies, because the auditing and due diligence have already been done. Two, insist that companies have licences in other jurisdictions - that'll make them more careful. And three, raise the bar high on regulations. After doing all that, you'd be down to just 10-12 companies in the world anyway.'

Companies said they would need more facts on Singapore's policies before they decide how much they would be prepared to invest. Mr Stirling indicated that US$300 million per resort would be a typical minimum investment. But this could go as high as US$1 billion if conditions were right - about three times the cost of The Esplanade.

Among the other conditions of concern to the industry was rules on entry for patrons. In some jurisdictions (such as London) entry rules are restrictive; establishments are small, with limited games. They are also only open to foreigners and require registration in advance.

Industry players did not consider the 'London model' to be conducive to large investments or a vibrant market. Mr Lanni pointed out that the UK is itself in the process of bringing its gaming laws closer to the 'Nevada model' to attract more capital outlays.

Caesars' Mr Stirling indicated flatly that 'a passports-only casino would not warrant a major investment in Singapore for my company'.

Industry observers felt that it was crucial for Singapore to get its model right. 'The London/Monte Carlo model of casino gaming is old, tired, stuffy and generally snobbish,' said Jonathan Galaviz, a Las Vegas-based investment adviser and consultant on the gaming industry who is also a Singapore PR.

'Rather than embark on such an obviously flawed model, Singapore would be far better off to not even legalise casinos,' he said.

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 19 May 2004 0001 hrs

By Channel NewsAsia's Roland Lim

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/imagegallery/store/phpIvARxd.jpg

Las Vegas gaming giant Sheldon Adelson is keen to replicate a Las Vegas-style gambling resort in Singapore.

Speaking at the opening of his US$250 million new casino in Macau, Mr Adelson says that he would tender a bid if his research shows that it would not cannibalise his Macau operations.

Singapore will know by the end of this year if the government will allow a casino on the Southern islands while the Thai parliament has already endorsed legalising casinos in the kingdom.

Mr Adelson, Chairman, Las Vegas Sands, said: "Yes, we're very interested in Singapore and Thailand and as long as we don't believe that it would materially impact our presence here in Macau. As this market should be the China market, well we get people from Singapore and Thailand, yes, but would we as an operator be interested in operating over there, the answer is yes."-CNA

Copyright © 2004 MCN International Pte Ltd

Business Times - 21 May 2004

He voices concerns over BFC drawing away existing office tenants

By ANDREA TAN

(SINGAPORE) Property tycoon Kwek Leng Beng is betting on a casino in front of the controversial Business and Financial Centre at the New Downtown.

He said yesterday he isn't looking 'at the moment' at taking part in the BFC. 'But it can be exciting if you have a big casino like The Venetian in Macau ... instead of on an island ... let it be in front of the BFC,' he told reporters on the sidelines of a hotel conference organised by Jones Lang LaSalle.

Las Vegas Sands, parent company of the Venetian Resort-Hotel Casino in Las Vegas, earlier this week opened its US$240 million Sands Macao casino in the Chinese southern territory and is building The Venetian, a mega tourism development on the reclaimed land of Cotai, Macau.

Las Vegas Sands is meeting Singapore officials to discuss plans for a casino here and said it is open to having a local partner.

Mr Kwek, executive chairman of Hong Leong group, first mooted building a casino open 'only for foreigners' at potential sites in Bugis and Fullerton areas in 1997. Casinos were a no-no back then. But the Singapore government has said recently it will consider allowing a casino here, and suggested siting it at Sentosa/Southern Islands.

On Mr Kwek's suggestion to build a casino at the New Downtown, Knight Frank executive director Tay Kah Poh said: 'It will add a lot more buzz to the area and the casino will be a huge traffic generator. There is some merit to that point.'

Mr Kwek, who also controls listed City Developments, reiterated his concerns over the BFC yesterday. 'The over supply situation (in the office market) is stabilising,' he said. 'I'm sure there'll be demand (for the BFC) but sometimes if they don't expand their hub business they would cannibalise demand from the existing space.'

To prevent such a situation from happening, Mr Kwek proposed that the government buy back buildings along Shenton Way, which is 'too dilapidated', and develop the area into parkland.

'When the market is better, they can still sell it and make money,' he said. 'Well, they didn't obviously accept my idea.'

Elaborating, a Hong Leong Group spokesman said: 'It would be difficult for the government to buy back all these buildings. An alternative could be to offer existing owners a stake in the BFC.'

Rents for prime office space tumbled 18.4 per cent in Q1 compared with the same period last year, while capital values fell 5 per cent, according to data from JLL. Some 8 million sq ft of office space are unoccupied.

Mr Kwek said that while he will 're-examine again' having an office real estate investment trust, 'at the moment, it's not exciting yet as no building can give you 6 per cent yields'.

He said he would not consider spinning off office assets, like rival CapitaLand did with CapitaCommercial Trust (CCT).

'Not at the moment, because I think you're downsizing your operations,' Mr Kwek said. 'You have fewer assets ... you get rid of them but you don't get cash in.'

CapitaLand injected seven of its office assets and carparks into CCT, giving shareholders one CCT unit for every five CapitaLand shares owned.

CCT has a distribution yield of 5.86 per cent based on its closing price of 97 cents yesterday.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

i hope singapore's casino wont be gaudy and crass like that macau one... look at the crowd it attracted... so rowdy and... like that... sg's casino should look more like a modern art's museum :P it would work to attract the upper income people too ... anyhow, it should not not look seedy (esp if its on bfc site, because it isnt obscuredfrom my view like on sentosa) but refined, like the rest of the buildings in sg

(SINGAPORE) Property tycoon Kwek Leng Beng is betting on a casino in front of the controversial Business and Financial Centre at the New Downtown.

He said yesterday he isn't looking 'at the moment' at taking part in the BFC. 'But it can be exciting if you have a big casino like The Venetian in Macau ... instead of on an island ... let it be in front of the BFC,' he told reporters on the sidelines of a hotel conference organised by Jones Lang LaSalle.

I like this idea if it speeds up the BFC development but dont think it will be accepted since the casino is so associated with the Sentosa package now.

This is not going to be a highrise for sure. 101% sure of that! :D

I almost tought it was the casino development initiatially...haha!

They both are kinda linked.

Foster never designs boring stuff, I think he will make something organic? Something funky for Singapore lol :D

Hope a rendition comes out soon.

I have a feeling is wants the casino on the "pomontary site." That will make it really hilarious. From a twin tower, to a civic institution to a casino?? :D

i hope it looks osmething like this :D by will alsop

http://www.ladt.org.uk/4thgrace/images/Nep_Count_Alsop.jpg

Oh I want that for the triangular patch! :eek:

New casino in singapore??? then singaporean would never come to gamble in genting highland anymore .....

Casino operator may pump $3.4b into Sentosa


SINGAPORE : Two days after its brand new Macau casino attracted busloads of mainland Chinese and caused a stampede, Las Vegas Sands Inc is ready to talk business in Singapore.

Its president and chief operating officer, Mr William Weidner, said the company - which is also behind the successful Venetian Casino Resort in Las Vegas - is ready to pump in as much as US$2 billion (S$3.44 billion) to operate a casino on Sentosa.

"We are very interested in the possibilities of developing a casino in Singapore," said Mr Weidner, who was in Singapore for the 7th Asia-Pacific Hotel Investment Conference.

Discussions with the Singapore Government started a couple of months ago and a Singapore delegation is currently in Las Vegas, according to Mr Weidner.

"They're studying various aspects of casinos. They've toured our casinos and talked to our department heads. They're thoroughly evaluating many aspects of casinos, like the employment, the economic impact and issues like compulsive gaming and job skill training, all the things you'd expect them to look at closely," he added.

However, talks are exploratory and no formal tender process has started, he stressed.

Nor has the Government formally given a go-ahead for the casino proposal, although it has said a decision will be announced in six to nine months' time.

Still, Las Vegas Sands, with cash of US$1 billion and planning an IPO to raise as much as US$300 million, may have a head start already.

For one, it has just opened a US$240-million casino in Macau. Next, it wants to create an Asian version of the Strip with another artificial Venice in Cotai, Macau, to be ready by 2007.

In all, it's pumping in over US$2 billion to make Macau a "destination" for gamblers, betting big on just one market - newly-affluent mainland Chinese.

Singapore, which has previously resisted calls to have a casino due to its social dangers, has since floated the idea of an upmarket gambling paradise for high rollers, with restrictive access for locals.

However, analysts have said the most profitable casinos are the ones with mass appeal, with their slot machines, shopping malls, and themed hotels.

Even in Las Vegas, the US$1.2-billion Venetian casino derives 80 per cent of its cash flow from non-casino operations, said Mr Weidner.

So if Singapore ditches this mass-market formula, and goes for the upmarket crowd, will it work?

For instance, London-style casinos are only open to foreigners and require registration in advance, but don't appeal to investors because of its stuffy image, say industry players.

But Mr Weidner argues that although limited casinos cannot generate the kind of additional investments that an unlimited casino can, such as hotels and malls, "Singapore has all these already".

"What it doesn't have is a casino. So for Singapore, a casino is just an extension to its tourism assets like its airport," he pointed out.

As an example, he said The Sands in Macau caters to two segments of customers. On the lower floors are 2,500 seats for day-trippers who make their way from Hong Kong and Zhuhai by bus, served with Asian buffet and fast food.

What Singapore could duplicate is its VIP area, which is "by invite only", with its four destination restaurants, 51 suites, and spas.

And with its pan-Asian reach, Singapore can reach out to the Indian market -- which is currently untapped by Macau casinos, he said.

"If the Singapore government says they want a US$2 billion destination resort, we'll do it. We have the capability. But I doubt it. They will want to take a step at a time," he said.

This step-by-step approach is natural, he said.

"Most governments will want to put their toe in the water to find out its temperature," rather than plunge in immediately, he said.

Singapore could be successful, even if it decides not to go further than that dip in the pool, he said.

He added that Las Vegas Sands is open to taking an equity stake in a joint venture if there is an "appropriate partner". Nor does he rule out working with the Government, should it be involved in the high-stakes casino game as well. - TODAY







@kevinkhoo
it seems the casino, if built, will mostlikely cater exclusively to the rich.. so there'll still be lotsa poor ppl going to genting to gamble ;)

wah..3.4 billion :eek:

Sigh...money talks. Now it seems like casino kings are trying to make the garmen's eyes go green! :D

Casino industry to hold conference in S'pore

IN A year when the Singapore Government has signalled that it may be ready to consider opening a casino on Sentosa, over 1,000 people in the casino trade will be gathering for a conference on the gaming industry next month.


Asian Casinos Expo (ACE), into its ninth year, will be held at the Raffles City Convention Centre from June 22 to 23, the organisers said on Friday.


Those attending the conference include players from major casinos in Asia, Europe and the USA, clubs, hotels, cruise liners and leisure and gaming institutions.


Discussions will be raised on issues such as gaming in Asia and its prospects, challenges to new entrants to the gaming market, online betting and balancing the economics of gambling against the need for regulation.


The keynote speakers are from casino operators such as SJM from Macau and Harrah's Entertainment from the United States.


The conference will also be Asia's largest showcase for the latest gaming machines and products.


The ACE has been held in Singapore before - under name Gaming & Casinos World Asia Pacific - but it is this year that the presence of industry players finds resonance, following the Government's announcement in a March sitting of Parliament that it was considering opening a high-rollers casino in Sentosa.


The casino could sit within an international resort playground with white sand beaches, marinas, spas, gourmet restaurants and high-end fashion malls.


Singapore has, through the years, rejected the idea of casinos for fear that the social ills of addiction to gambling would take hold, but the Government now thinks that the economic gains to be reaped for the service and tourism sectors should not be foregone.


It also announced that if the idea becomes reality, measures will be put in place to limit access to the casino by Singaporeans and to keep out organised crime.


Industry players mostly welcomed the move, saying that casinos need not necessarily be seedy places, though some Singaporeans have expressed reservations.

I hope I won't see a 3rd. flying saucer by Norman Foster.....

wah..3.4 billion :eek:

Why not spend 3.4 billion to build more skyscrapers rather than a casino :laugh:

um... because they are a casino company? maybe they might have a skyscraper hotel on sentosa (hopefully in cbd though)

sentosa will be lowrise.

Why not spend 3.4 billion to build more skyscrapers rather than a casino :laugh:
There wont be a skyscraper on Sentosa, especially if it ends up taller then the Merlion or the rotating tower thing! :D

I hope I won't see a 3rd. flying saucer by Norman Foster.....

I thought of that but I dont think there will be a 3rd time :D

Foster's work overseas seems quite alright, seems he only did the saucer thing in Sg.

But some of his works at integrating new designs with old structures has been impressive..like that museum in London where he constructed a lattice roof over some buildings.

I thought of that but I dont think there will be a 3rd time :D

Foster's work overseas seems quite alright, seems he only did the saucer thing in Sg.

But some of his works at integrating new designs with old structures has been impressive..like that museum in London where he constructed a lattice roof over some buildings.


Yah that's the problem. His works are great........ elsewhere. Singapore is like his favourite dumping ground. Oh well......

I.M. Pei's work are great also but again........ elsewhere.

Business Times - 31 May 2004

It has advantages others lack, but must permit local patronage and address social costs

By VIKRAM KHANNA

WITH competition in Asia's US$13 billion casino gaming industry starting to hot up, what are Singapore's chances of capturing a decent slice of the pie - assuming it wanted to?

Pretty good, if the views of the world's gaming giants like MGM-Mirage, Caesars Entertainment and Venetian Sands are any indication. Moreover, if the Singapore authorities - and the major industry players - play their cards right, the gaming and related industries can transform Singapore's tourism, hospitality, arts and entertainment scene, leading to job creation and tax revenue on a significant scale - far more than many other industries (like biotechnology) on which Singapore has bet big. Moreover, gaming is an industry that can create high-paying jobs without requiring high-level tertiary skills on a large scale (which fits well with Singapore's current skill profile). And, crucially, what Singapore can potentially do in the gaming business cannot be easily replicated elsewhere.

To see just how strong Singapore is as a contender, one common misconception about the gaming industry needs to be dispelled. This is the idea that it is a 'sleazy' industry. That is certainly true of its history; up until the 1970s, it was associated with mobsters and mafiosos, but that was because they were the only people willing to finance it.

Today, the story is totally different.

The world's gaming giants are New York Stock Exchange-listed companies with multi-billion dollar revenues, run by professional boards and they raise their funds on capital markets. They are among the most regulated and closely monitored companies anywhere, answerable not only to their shareholders (which include institutions) but also to gaming control authorities and US state governments.

There are strict rules to which they must conform in terms of who runs them, how they are run and how they are regulated. If they step out of line, they get rapped. They can even lose their licences to operate, virtually overnight. Moreover, their licences are interdependent. If they run into a serious problem in an Asian location, where say, regulations are improperly designed or enforced, their business in other locations (including the US) can be put in jeopardy. In short, their circumstances force them to observe the highest standards of corporate governance and to be highly risk averse.

To the giants of the gaming industry, risk aversion means, first and foremost, investing only in locations where they can be confident of the gaming regulatory systems, including enforcement, as well as legal systems (for purposes of debt collection, including cross-border debt). The quality of infrastructure, airline connectivity and availability of support industries also matter.

Singapore has advantages over other Asian locations (including Macau) in all these areas, but its biggest advantage lies in the perceived integrity of its regulatory systems. This is a matter of confidence and trust, built up over time, and is not something other locations can easily replicate.

This is why, while many countries can invite companies to set up casinos (or allow local companies to do so), most are unlikely to attract large investments by big players, who need to have a high level of comfort with the regulatory and legal (apart from physical) infrastructure before they commit large resources. And if they make smaller investments, these are likely to be concentrated on gaming, rather than on integrated resorts that encompass entertainment, the arts, retail, food and beverage, spas and convention facilities.

Thus, it is notable that despite all the hoopla, the US$240 million invested in Macau by Venetian Sands is, in fact, a modest investment by the standards of the gaming giants, whose major properties involve investments of US$1 billion each, at a minimum.

Singapore has an additional advantage over most other locations in Asia that are vying for the gaming business: it needs the tax revenues less. This means it can afford to peg gaming tax rates at relatively low levels (like under 10 per cent). From the gaming industry's perspective, the lower the taxes they have to pay, the higher their expected post-tax returns, the higher the capital investments they are prepared to make.

Better bet: In short, while many other locations can attract casinos of some form or another, Singapore has a better shot than most at getting major investments by big players in integrated resorts that would span not only gaming, but also other areas.

However, there are two key issues that Singapore must face squarely if it wants to get the full benefits that the gaming industry can offer. One is that it must be prepared to allow local residents to patronise resorts, rather than confining them to foreigners or high rollers. The 'passports only' or 'super-rich only' models will not induce major investments and will therefore not produce benefits on a significant scale. So-called exclusive casinos which cater to a select few are not worth the trouble of legalising gaming.

There will also be social costs Singapore must face. Opponents of legalised gaming have drawn attention to the possible consequences of 'problem gambling'. It is a valid concern, which needs to be addressed. But it should be addressed whether Singapore legalises gaming or not, because there will be plenty of places in Asia for Singapore-resident gamblers to go - in fact, there is choice enough already. Legalising gaming might, in fact, enable appropriate regulations and mechanisms to be devised to deal with 'problem gambling' that would not happen if gaming remains illegal.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

The Merlion Tower is useless!!!

You might as well go up a 25-storey point block and have a view that's twice as far.

Business Times - 01 Jun 2004

Industry analyst thinks a decision may be near

By VINCE CHONG

(SINGAPORE) Singapore looks a step closer to a decision on a casino with the recent trip of a high-level government delegation to study casino operations in Las Vegas, the gaming capital of the world.

The visit to the US was made a fortnight ago, and the 20 delegates included senior members from the ministries of Trade and Industry, Finance, and Community Development and Sports. The delegation was led by Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister of State for Trade and Industry and for National Development.

It is understood that the fact-finding visit was informally facilitated by Darrell Metzger, chief executive of Sentosa Leisure Group and an American who has vast experience in the US tourism industry.

According to an article in the Las Vegas Business Press (LVBP), the group was there to study the key structures of the billion-dollar casino industry, such as regulatory, tax, operational and financial structures, in addition to its potential social impact.

LVBP said the team met casino executives from Strip, part of Caesar's Entertainment; Las Vegas Sands, which operates the Venetian casino; MGM Mirage, as well as members of the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling.

The paper also quoted Jonathan Galaviz, president of the Singapore Association of Nevada and the gaming industry analyst for his company, Galaviz Investment Management, as saying that the delegation's visit signals an intent that 'almost guarantees that the issue will come before the Singapore Parliament for a vote within six months'.

The association is a non-profit group promoting economic and cultural ties between the state of Nevada, whose major city is Las Vegas, and Singapore.

LVBP wrote: 'The group's visit demonstrates the country's commitment to seriously consider lifting the current ban on gambling by doing research on the models being successfully practised around the world.

'The Singapore government has been giving serious consideration to legalising gambling in order to boost the country's position in South-east Asia's emerging travel and leisure market as well as create new sources of job, and tax and other revenues as the growing regional economy expects to reach almost US$1,000 billion this year.'

In March, Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo said in Parliament that the resort island of Sentosa, along with the leisure hub being mooted for the Southern Islands, could potentially play host to a casino.

Mr Galaviz, who did not meet the delegation, also told LVBP that Las Vegas gaming companies are far from certain to be selected despite the visit, as Singapore will almost certainly study major gaming prototypes in other places like Monte Carlo, London and the Caribbean before deciding on which model best suits the city-state.

'If I was advising a Las Vegas company, I would advise not to fight who gets Singapore but work together to show that the Las Vegas model is far superior to any other in the world,' he said.

If Singapore does go with the Las Vegas model, he added, the island could host multiple gaming operators as the model is partially laissez-faire without restriction on the number of licences.

Mr Galaviz told LVBP that Singapore has advantages over other Asian nations that might be interested in hosting casinos such as Thailand and Indonesia, as well as the current gaming hot spot of Macau. These, he said, include a superior infrastructure, one of Asia's lowest tax regimes and an educated workforce.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 02 June 2004 1558 hrs

Malaysia's Genting expressed interest in a casino project the Singapore government is considering for its Sentosa leisure resort island.

The Singapore government is considering building a casino on Sentosa as part of efforts to revive tourist arrivals at the resort island.

Singapore media reports have suggested a decision is likely by year-end.

Genting is involved in power generation, plantations, property development, and oil and gas exploration.

It owns 56 percent of Resorts World, which operates its hotel, casino and other leisure businesses.

Genting "is looking at the (Singapore) situation closely" as visitors from Singapore are key to the group's flagship Genting Highlands resort and casino, Resorts World's Executive Vice President Lee Choong Yan said.

Over 20 percent of hotel guests at the hilltop resort are from Singapore, Mr Lee said, while an unspecified number of tourists from the Republic go on day-trips.

A total 15.6 million people visited Genting Highlands last year, and analysts estimate 25 percent of them were from Singapore, which means the opening of a casino in the neighbouring republic could hit Genting hard. - CNA

Copyright © 2004 MCN International Pte Ltd

Business Times - 03 Jun 2004

S'pore casino plan may hurt earnings: Genting

Its casino unit may want to invest in the S'pore casino project if allowed

(KUALA LUMPUR) Genting Bhd, owner of Asia's biggest publicly traded casino, said a plan by the Singapore government to set up a casino in the city state may hurt the Malaysian company's earnings.

Genting's casino unit Resorts World Bhd may be interested in investing in the Singapore casino project if the island's government allows it to do so, Lee Choong Yan, executive vice-president for Resorts World, told reporters in Kuala Lumpur.

It's the first time Kuala Lumpur-based Genting has commented on the impact of potential competition from the region. The company has sought to boost its power-generation business to become less reliant on casino earnings in anticipation of competition from Singapore and Thailand.

'Genting is doing everything it can to diversify but casino operations have grown to a point where they have to grow other operations at a faster rate,' said Raymond Tang of CMS Dresdner Asset Management Sdn in Kuala Lumpur.

Still, diversifying is 'a double-edged sword, because the margins in gambling are so good', he said. 'Any other business lowers their overall margins.'

Shares of Genting, controlled by the Lim Goh Tong family and with interests in power, oil and gas, plantations and cruise operations, have fallen 8.4 per cent this year. Resorts, which also owns hotels, has dropped 12 per cent this year.

Singaporeans account for more than 20 per cent of Resorts' hotel guests, while Thai visitors form less than 7 per cent, Mr Lee said.

'Singaporeans constitute a good number of our visitors, so there will be some effect,' Mr Lee said. 'We will be monitoring the situation closely. If the opportunity arises, we would be interested to' consider investing in the casino project in Singapore, he said.

Genting's profit for the first-quarter ended March 31 rose 14 per cent to 223 million Malaysian ringgit (S$100 million) from the same period a year ago.

Last month, Las Vegas Sands Inc, known for its Venetian Casino Resort in the US gambling capital, said it would meet Singapore government officials to discuss plans for the first casino in the city state.

Singapore, which only allows lotteries and betting on horse racing, is considering casinos as part of an island-resort development in a bid to attract tourists and boost its economy. - Bloomberg

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

Hahaha...I knew that will happen. If they might loose money, then might as well invest in the competition?

But wont that make even more people stop going to Genting Highlands in the first place, if they can get the same thing here minus the hill and amusement parks?

Hahaha...I knew that will happen. If they might loose money, then might as well invest in the competition?

But wont that make even more people stop going to Genting Highlands in the first place, if they can get the same thing here minus the hill and amusement parks?

But at least they will still earn money from the Singapore branch.........:D

Haha....i find it familiar.....isn't there talks about buying competing ports??:D

Business Times - 05 Jun 2004

It plans to offer additional perks to woo more foreigners; details on foreign ownership of landed property to be tied up in weeks

By DANIEL BUENAS

SENTOSA Cove, the upmarket residential development on Sentosa island, is likely to launch more land for sale in four to six weeks. And the island is looking to attract the rich and famous through incentives such as golf memberships and free entry to attractions for their children.

Darrell Metzger, chief executive of Sentosa Leisure Group (SLG), told BT in an interview that the launch of more building land has been held back until regulations on foreign ownership of property are tied up. SLG oversees the development of the Sentosa.

'We're a few weeks away from finalising all the details on the foreign ownership of landed property here, which has really been a delay,' said Mr Metzger. 'When we put the sites up, we want to make sure we can accommodate interest from foreigners, which will be a major step for us and will really open up the market.'

In March this year, the government said it would give special permission for foreign ownership of landed properties at Sentosa Cove. The Cove's first land tender closed in February, with about 6 per cent of the total inventory offered.

Mr Metzger said the second land sale will mirror the first, featuring a combination of condominiums, terraces and bungalows. He also expects the next tender to fetch higher prices, due to the possibility of foreign ownership.

'It will be my assumption prices would go up, because foreigners will be coming in . . . and they have the ability to pay,' he said. 'It's a matter of how quickly we can reach those foreigners.'

Sentosa Cove is expected to draw an estimated $3 billion of investment through 2,600 homes. And Mr Metzger expects to see 10 to 15 per cent foreign ownership.

He said Sentosa Cove hopes to attract high net worth foreigners who can bring many benefits to Singapore. 'Those kinds of people are usually entrepreneurs or CEOs of major companies, and there's a likelihood that they would move their regional headquarters here to Singapore,' he said. 'They might start a business here, or expand their business, so it has a lot more to do with than just selling a house, and that's the primary reason for foreign ownership.'

And it's not just the rich the Cove hopes to attract, but the famous as well. 'We are targetting individuals who have some name recognition in their industry, whether it is arts, sports or business,' Mr Metzger said. 'In the end, I think we would like to see 20 or 30 people here that would have some name recognition, and that helps establish a certain ambience about the Cove.'

To lure the rich and well-known people, Sentosa Cove is considering several marketing initiatives. 'We have golf-front houses and some of them on the water, so we may look at the option of offering, if you buy a house on the golf course, a free golf buggy and a membership of Sentosa golf club,' Mr Metzger said.

Other ideas include letting the children of property owners have free access to the island's attractions.

Sentosa Cove is also trying to obtain approval from Urban Redevelopment Authority to allow some property owners to build part of their houses over the inland waterways and ponds at the Cove development.

'You can actually have your back-porch right over the waterway and go fishing on your porch,' Mr Metzger said. 'That will be something nobody else in Singapore can offer.'

To cater to this lifestyle, the Cove will have a $20 million, 240-berth marina that can accommodate up to 10 mega-yachts. The tender for the marina was launched in April and closes on July 9. Mr Metzger says response has been good, with about 20 groups having expressed interest.

Sentosa Cove will be launched in two broad stages - North Cove, with about 1,600 units, and South Cove, with about 1,000 units. North Cove has already been completed, and is where the sites in the first land sale are located. The area for South Cove has been reclaimed and should be ready for sale in about two years.

The development of the Southern Islands, however, still remains open to discussion, as the government has yet to decide if a casino will be built there.

Even if there is a casino, Mr Metzger believes it won't detract from the allure of Sentosa Cove. 'I'll imagine it will be an interesting sight to see at night from the Cove,' he said.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

June 8, 2004

What’s holding up our casino plans?
By CONRAD RAJ

IT has been two-and-a-half months since the idea of allowing a casino here was mooted by the Government.

Trade and Industry Minister George Yeo told Parliament in March that the resort island of Sentosa, along with the leisure hub being mooted for the Southern Islands, could potentially play host to a casino.

Since then, others have moved ahead.

Thailand has announced the establishment of three casinos. Macau has already attracted billions of dollars in new casino investments. Taiwan and Japan have expressed interest in establishing their own gaming tables.

There are also casinos operating in places like Australia, the Philippines, South Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, which daily rake in some of the money that could be kept within these shores.

According to recent media reports, Singaporeans spend nearly US$1 billion (S$1.7 billion) in foreign casinos and account for more than 20 per cent of the gamblers in Malaysia’s Genting Highlands.

Although casinos are officially banned in Indonesia, hundreds of Singaporeans head every week for the 45-minute ferry ride to Batam’s illicit gaming tables.

Singapore’s announcement that a Singapore casino is now a possiblity is a good sign that we are becoming more open-minded on the subject and more serious about stemming the outward flow of gambling dollars as well as attracting these here.

What puzzles me though is that Singapore is renowned for spending time considering the pros and cons of policies and decisions.

And I would expect that the casino announcement did not come out of the blue.

If some spade work had already been done, then the March statement was likely to achieve two things: test the wind among the populace and see if the big boys in the gaming industry think it’s worth setting up shop here.

On the first score, perhaps the Government could have given some kind of a deadline for a reaction. Already, forum page writers have whipped out their pens. Hopefully, societies, religious organisations, and other groups have either been canvassed for their views or already submitted them.

If they haven’t, some sort of deadline to do so could energise them.

In any case, I would think that any objections would be undermined by the fact that gambling is already well entrenched here.

Just a few days ago Singapore Pools announced that it is making it even easier for Singaporeans to have a flutter.

Not only has the government-owned operator of Toto, football and 4-D bets and the Singapore Sweep lottery, expanded its network of gaming outlets, but it will soon allow you to use your ez-link, Nets and Cashcard to place your bets.

All this is raking in billions of dollars, which I might add, is that much less for the underground betting syndicates. Pools alone had revenues of $4.2 billion for the financial year ended March 2003. The Turf Club brings a couple of billion dollars more.

Still, there’s some leakage, no thanks to the illegal operators of 4-D, horse-racing and soccer betting.

Millions more are lost by Singaporeans in foreign casinos and betting tables on cruise ships, many of which call at Singapore.

According to Dutch financial institution ABN-Amro, the unregulated gaming industry in East Asia is estimated to be worth US$13 billion.

And this has not gone unnoticed by several of the biggest casino operators, who have made clear their interest in opening shop here.

This brings me to the second point: The big fish are biting.

Isn’t it time to start reeling them in?

These organisations know far more than anyone in government about the operations and potential profitability of a major casino. That they have expressed interest is a good sign.

One obvious factor in Singapore’s favour is the “clean” image of the country. The likes of MGM Mirage know that the high level of transparency here means no kickbacks, no surprises in the costs of doing business here.

They also know that the country’s safe streets will be an added attraction for foreigners to come here, place their bets and collect their winnings.

But even these pluses will not keep the boys on the hook long. Other opportunities will pull their attention.

We could prolong our examination of the matter. But, if, as I said, our studies have shown the positives outweighed the negatives sufficiently to allow Minister Yeo to raise the flag; government has ideas of how to prevent heartlanders from turning all their cash into chips; and casino operators have indicated the potential success of the resort; why don’t we have a flutter of our own and open the door?


Copyright © 2003 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

JUNE 12, 2004
Pergas opposes casino idea

PERGAS, the Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association, is opposed to the idea of having a casino on Sentosa, saying it will produce 'more harm than benefits' for the country.

It is worried that gambling could lead to addiction as well as social and moral corruption, and undermine efforts to nurture honesty, hard work and a sense of gratitude rather than greed among people.

'Our concern... is not just for the Muslim community, but also for the nation at large, regardless of religious faith and beliefs,' said its president, Mr Mohamad Hasbi Hassan, in a statement yesterday.

He noted that Pergas' position echoed the views of many Singaporeans who are equally concerned about 'the negative effect gambling has on... our society'.

Pergas urged the Government to find other 'moral and sustainable' alternatives to boost Singapore's economic competitiveness.

The Government, which has long resisted calls to allow a casino, will decide by January whether to give the go-ahead, after carrying out extensive consultations and a careful study of its social and economic implications.

It says measures will be taken to control the negative effects of gambling but Pergas' fears have not been allayed.

The association said studies have shown the harmful effects that gambling has on individuals, families and communities. Also, gambling is forbidden, or haram, in Islam, it noted.

Pergas believes Singapore may have already 'compromised' its position on gambling by opting to control rather than eradicate it.

'By not decisively nipping a potential social ill in the bud, we fear our nation may have taken that slippery road towards moral degeneration.'

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 12 Jun 2004

Tourism worse off if S'pore decides against casino: don
Any curbs on access could also put off operators, he says

By DANIEL BUENAS

(SINGAPORE) Singapore's tourism industry will be worse off if the government should decide against opening casinos here. And, if they are allowed, restricting access to certain social groups could put off casino operators, according to a US academic and expert in tourism management.

Chris Roberts, a University of Massachusetts professor who teaches and does research on casino and resort management, believes that not having a casino would be detrimental to Singapore's tourism trade.

'From a market perspective, it's about keeping up with the Joneses if you will,' said Dr Roberts. 'So many other tourism market places have gaming as an option for consumers, and the fact that Singapore doesn't, I think is already starting to hurt it.'

Dr Roberts was invited recently by the Hotel Association of Singapore to give a series of lectures and seminars here on hotel and resort management. He also advises Sentosa on tourism courses conducted on the island.

Dr Roberts believes that Singapore's unique governmental structure and tight controls will give it an advantage in suppressing the more undesirable side effects of casinos.

He also pointed out that opening casinos won't mean that all tourists who come to Singapore will be hard-core gamblers, or even choose to gamble at all.

'Singapore becomes a more desirable, a more standard-looking tourism destination, by having a casino,' Dr Roberts said. 'Whether tourists use it or not doesn't matter, they just like to know that it is there, that it is part of a choice mix that people will have.'

However, should casinos be built on Singapore's shores, Dr Roberts feels that any plan to impose entry restrictions would discourage casino operators to set up shop here, as casinos often rely on heavy human traffic for steady revenue.

'Casino providers are going to be leery of that because it limits the volume of customers. For most casinos, 60 to 70 per cent of their revenue comes from slot machines, even those in Las Vegas, that focus on the high-end players,' he said. 'They need the mass, the 'grind', those who come in and just drop $50 for the day.'

Dr Roberts said that the 300 or so 'whales' - ultra-rich players who are willing to bet millions of dollars a night - that are sought after by casinos all over the world, are unlikely to be drawn to casinos here.

Likewise, he said that premium players - those who spend $3,000 to $5,000 a night - will have the financial resources to go to other more trendy gambling spots. 'If there's an economic policy made about the level of the premium player, you're going to cut down the quantity of customers so narrow, that the vendor is not going to see economic viability,' he said.

'They need volume, so if Singapore were to implement these restrictions, I think the casino companies are going to look at it very, very hesitantly.'

Dr Roberts believes, however, that the best option for the government is to integrate casinos into a larger resort setting, where casino patrons will have other activities to occupy themselves.

Besides a higher tourist profile, Dr Roberts believes that having casinos in Singapore would result in a number of spin-off industries, including dealership schools.

'Casinos need dealers, and the common pattern is to require applicants to go to dealer school, outside the business ... as casinos don't want to pay the training costs,' he said.

Another spin-off that may arise is in the security industry. 'The type of surveillance and security the casinos use are probably technologies that most businesses don't,' said Dr Roberts. 'So the demand for those services will grow.'

The possibility of building casinos on one of the Southern Islands was mooted by the government earlier this year, and there has been a torrent of responses by proponents - and opponents - to the idea in the local press.

Just last month, a high-level government delegation led by Minister of State for Trade and Industry and National Development, Vivian Balakrishnan, made a trip to study casino operations in Las Vegas, the gaming capital of the world.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 17 Jun 2004

Casino resort study still in progress

I WOULD like to thank the authors of the letters, commentaries and articles in your paper following the Government's announcement in March that it is studying the development of an integrated entertainment resort, which may include a casino.

The proposed resort is a complex and major project with potentially significant economic benefits and social implications. We therefore have to carefully examine all the issues involved. To help us in our study, we will engage international consultants and learn from industry experts. Much can also be learned from the experiences of other countries with similar developments.

The study on the proposed resort development is still at a preliminary stage. As the government has stated previously, a decision on whether to proceed with a casino component will be made only after careful deliberation of the various issues involved. In this regard, we value and will carefully consider the public's feedback before arriving at a decision. Readers with views on the proposed integrated entertainment resort are invited to write to the Ministry of Trade and Industry at 100 High Street, #09-01, The Treasury (179434); or to fax your feedback to 6332 7260, or to e-mail: mti_email@mti.gov.sg

Lim Chuen Ni (Ms)
Senior Assistant Director/Corporate
Communications (Head)
for Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Trade and Industry

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

JUNE 23, 2004
Casino giants eye Singapore and Thailand
Competition heats up, with US casino executives keen to meet Singapore officials to check out level of interest

By Glenys Sim

THE casino war in Asia is hotting up as gaming giants eye potential markets in Singapore and Thailand while Asia's gambling 'king' Stanley Ho plans to bet US$380 million (S$646 million) on re-inventing his empire in Macau.

Following in the footsteps of three others, America's No 3 casino company said yesterday that it sees bright hopes in Singapore and will meet Government officials on Thursday to 'discern their level of interest'.

'We are definitely interested in looking at the Singapore market if the Government decides to go ahead,' said Ms Jan Jones, senior vice-president of communications and government relations at Harrah's Entertainment.

Pointing to the prospects, she added: 'Singapore is a centre for trade and has a large population base within two hours of here.'

Ms Jones was speaking to The Straits Times at the sidelines of the Asian Casino Expo, the second event on gaming in Asia to be held here in less than two months.

Her company's interest adds to that of MGM-Mirage, Caesars Entertainment and Las Vegas Sands, all US giants that had reportedly met Singapore officials when they were in Las Vegas last to study casino operations there.

Singapore will make a decision by January 2005.

Mr Steven Lim, the executive director of RGB, a Malaysia-based gaming supplier, believes a Singapore casino can be up and running in 24 months of an announcement.

'It has all the infrastructure in place. There is no reason why it would take any longer,' he said.

Like Singapore, Thailand is considering getting a slice of the $14 billion business in Asia, tapping into the growing wealth of Asian tourists and their love for gambling.

Dr Ambrose So, director of Stanley Ho's Sociedade de Jogos de Macau (SJM), said his company would consider investing in both but Thailand would be 'more attractive'.

'Thailand has a higher population...We have more Thai than Singaporean customers and they are used to the type of gaming in Macau.'

However, Harrah's Ms Jones pointed out that a significantly lower capital investment does not make a place more attractive to investors.

'Las Vegas is in the middle of the desert. No one expected it to become such a huge tourist destination.

'The most important thing is the partnership between entertainment complexes and convention centres. Governments should note that non-gaming revenues in Las Vegas exceed gaming revenues,' she said, adding that Singapore is seen as a tourist destination.

It's a lesson that even Asia's gambling capital Macau is realising. Dr So's company will be building three theme parks on the island.

It is being done with the hope of coaxing visitors to stay beyond the average 1.35 days, he said, noting that visitors to Las Vegas stay 3.7 days.

One hot topic that emerged at the two-day event, which ends today, is the growing threat of online gaming. But RGB's Mr Lim thinks it may not take off in Asia \-- yet.

'The typical Asian high-roller is above the age of 40 and may not be exposed to technology. The Asian player likes to shout and be among crowds,' said Mr Lim.

However, all the 100 who attended the conference agreed on one thing: Countries planning to open casinos cannot just import existing concepts and models.

SJM's Dr So said: 'Operators must adapt to the market. For example, the Asian player likes to think he is in control of the game and his fate, so he likes to play card games rather than slot machines, which he thinks are pre-set.'

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 24 Jun 2004

Harrah's to meet S'pore officials on casino

HARRAH'S Entertainment Inc, the No 2 US casino company, will hold talks with Singapore officials today to discuss setting up a casino in the city, senior vice-president Jan Jones said.

Vienna-based Casinos Austria International is also interested in a venture with the government, chief executive Frank McFadden said.

Mr McFadden and Mr Jones were speaking on the sidelines of a gaming conference in Singapore.

Singapore has said it may include a casino in a resort and residential development being planned for one of its offshore islands, to lure more tourists and business travellers. Harrah's, Las Vegas Sands Inc, and Macanese tycoon Stanley Ho's Sociedade de Jogos de Macau are among foreign companies that have expressed interest in the project.

'Singapore has a huge market area, not only with the population base, but with additional millions of customers within very close proximity,' Mr Jones said.

Over 2.5 billion people live within seven hours flying time from Singapore, which currently only allows lotteries and betting on horse-racing, and which may restrict some of its four million people from visiting any casino in the city.

The government is considering allowing a casino to woo more tourists, as manufacturing and other jobs are lured to lower-wage countries such as China. Some 651,860 people visited the city in April, more than triple the number in the year-earlier period.

'The potential is in Singapore,' Mr McFadden said. 'Its infrastructure can support the casino by extending quality tourism, while the air links, hotels and other entertainment facilities are already here.'

Rising wealth in Asia is attracting gaming companies, especially as China doesn't permit casinos except in Macau.

Las Vegas Sands Inc last month opened a new casino in Macau, and Sands president William Weidner said the company would hold talks with Singapore.

'The whole objective here is to attract Chinese tourists who are a lot more keen in gaming,' said Nizam Idris, deputy head of research at IDEAglobal in Singapore. 'Right now, there's not a lot of choice for Chinese tourists, who can only visit Macau or Genting.'

The casino operators called for the Singapore government to establish clear policies to regulate the gambling industry. - Bloomberg

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

The New Paper - 25 Jun 2004

S'pore's casino connection

-S'pore PR is a casino regular... but he doesn't gamble
-Designed-in-S'pore gambling machines... but you can't play with them
By Desmond Ng

HE doesn't like to gamble. He isn't a risk-taker. Yet, he makes his living designing flashy jackpot and electronic gaming machines for casinos.

Mr Daven Tay, 35, is a director of Weiki, a company which specialises in designing the software for gaming machines.

Most of his 35 staff are engineering graduates from the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU).

But operating a casino is illegal here (at least for now), so who can they sell to?

The company is a partner of the Waz Lian Group, which also has a company making gaming machines in Malaysia, and sells them to casinos and clubs in the US, Europe and Asia.

Mr Tay was roped in to start the company by one of the directors of the Waz Lian Group, who took a liking to him when Mr Tay, as a third-year NTU electrical engineering student, tutored his son in 1994.

He said: 'He was keen to set up a company in Singapore to look into software development for slot and other gaming machines.' Mr Tay joined him to set up the company in 1998.

The company was one of the exhibitors at the ninth annual Asian Casinos Expo (ACE) that ended yesterday.

ELECTRONIC CARD GAME

The company with a turnover of a few million, looks into the product development of these machines, paying attention to the kind of music to use when it is operated, how to configure the motherboard and even the colours.


One of their newest products is a multi-player electronic table card game, in which players can gamble on blackjack without cards, chips or a dealer.

Mr Tay, a Malaysian permanent resident here, who is married to a bank employee and has a 3-year-old son, said that despite being surrounded by these gaming machines, he's not keen on gambling.

'I'm personally not a gambler and I don't like to gamble. I'm only interested in the technology behind it,' he said.

'I never stepped into a casino before joining this company. But now, I'm flying to casinos in countries such as the US, UK, Malaysia and even Slovenia just to get an idea of what they have.'

He spends about $100 on the gaming machines in the casinos each time, to test these products - all out of the company budget of course.

He said his wife is okay about his job as long as he doesn't gamble. His only flutter: 4-D or Toto once or twice a year, spending less than $10 each time.

He goes on overseas trips every month while his family stays behind in their five-room Sengkang flat.

When he employs people, he usually asks if they are against gambling. He said:

'If they are, I won't employ them. Otherwise it might be difficult for them to deal with our products. But I've not come across any so far.'


One of his employees, Mr Lee Kin Kok, a software engineer with a mechanical engineering degree and masters from NTU, has been working with him for two years.

Mr Lee, 30, said: 'There's a lot of creativity involved and it's fun. It's a bit like creating game software.'

Like Mr Tay, he's a non-gambler and goes to casinos only for work.

We asked Mr Tay about the winning odds for slot machines compared to the card tables, since he develops the software.

Said Mr Tay: 'For slot machines, it really depends on luck. It's all random, pure mathematics when you win. For card games like blackjack, there's more skill involved but it can go out of control if you keep doubling up.'

And, of course, he also has relatives and friends asking him how to play the slot machines and what are the chances of hitting the jackpot.

He laughed: 'I have only one answer - it depends on your luck. Though it's designed by me, I myself do not know how to beat the system or when it'll strike the jackpot.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackjack without chips, cards or dealers

PLAYING blackjack in a casino may never be the same again. There'll be no chips, no cards and no dealers - if Mr Tay has his way.

With his multi-player electronic table card game, gamblers don't get to interact with a dealer or touch their cards. They use a touch-screen interface to flip the cards over.

It took about six months to develop, said Mr Tay, who showed it off to trade visitors at ACE yesterday.

Each machine costs about $70,000.

Mr Tay said the company has applied for a patent for the concept. It is hoping to market it in countries such as Cambodia and the Philippines.

'It's like a virtual game concept. Now, you don't need a dealer to shuffle the cards or give out chips. Labour costs will be cut and probably fraud cases will decrease too,' explained Mr Tay.

He said it may take some time to change the mindset of gamblers, but he's confident people will take to it.

Mr Paul Arbuckle, general manager (table games operation) of StarCity Hotel and Casino in Sydney, said it's an interesting new product that could complement the other machines they have.

'It could potentially save us some money such as in the hiring of dealers but most card table players are traditional and like the interaction with the dealer.

'But I'm sure it'll appeal to the younger generation.'


Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

The New Paper - 25 Jun 2004

S'pore's Gaming Girls...
Will we see them in a casino near Sentosa?

By Desmond Ng

WOULD these Singapore girls working at the Asian Casinos Expo (ACE) work in a casino here?

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-06-24/dnslot-073242.jpg

Ms Esther Goh, 23, was one of 12 young women employed by the Waz Lian exhibitors to showcase their products at ACE.

The part-time model said: 'It's quite easy to work here, just press a few buttons and educate the visitors on how to use the machine.

'But I don't think I'll want to be a card dealer in a casino.

'I heard they don't get tips there.'

The young women - who invariably had fair skin and big eyes - were dressed in Hawaiian motif tops and ultra-short denim shorts.

EYE CANDY

That show of leg made them a key attraction at the exhibition.

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-06-24/dnslot-073510.jpg

They provided far more eye candy than another group of young women dressed as jockeys at the horse racing machine display.

The Waz Lian babes were dressed more like race queens, totally unlike the formally-dressed staff you might see in a real casino.

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-06-24/dnslot-073722.jpg

And for them, this was just a $10-an-hour, two-day job.

They were not required to know how to deal or shuffle cards and received no formal training, they said.

Some of them said they had been to casinos previously.

But their impressions from those visits didn't entice them to want to work in one. Ms Felicia Wong, 20, a student waiting for term to start at NTU next month, said: 'I find giving out cards quite a boring job.

'I don't think I'll like a full-time job there.

'Maybe part-time, just for the fun of it.'


Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

This story was printed from TODAYonline

Rush for Asia's gambling pie
Singapore's casino plan attracts top operators, jolts Manila into action

Friday • June 25, 2004

Three top casino companies expressed interest this week in Singapore's proposal to build a casino, prompting the Philippines to speed up its own US$15-billion ($26 billion) casino project as the race for Asia's gambling dollars heats up.

Executives from Australian-listed Casinos Austria International, Macau-based Sociedade de Jogos de Macau (SJM) and New York-listed Harrah's Entertainment all said that Singapore was an ideal location for the region's newest gambling house.

After years of opposing casinos out of worry that they would attract money-laundering and organised crime, the Singapore Government is now considering a multibillion-dollar casino-cum-resort to help expand its economy.

That development comes as Thailand, Taiwan and Japan are considering legalising casinos to capture a share of Asia's growing gambling pie, now dominated by Macau, which recently opened its own market to competition.

Singapore is attractive to casino companies because of its location, strong air links and established tourism industry. The proposed Singapore casino is likely to get most of its revenue from locals, given Singapore's dense population and the large per-capita income of $38,000, noted Casinos Austria chief executive Frank McMadden.

Singaporeans are avid gamblers, spending about $1,500 each locally on soccer-betting and horse-racing in 2002, according to the Government. As such, the casinos might not generate many new jobs, as local gamblers would only redistribute, not increase, national spending.

The exception would be locals who would gamble overseas if Singapore did not have a casino.

Singaporeans gamble an estimated $900 million overseas a year, according to ABN Amro and US-based gambling consultancy, The Innovation Group.

The Singapore casino, if approved, may have revenue "in the hundreds of millions of US dollars", said Ms Jan Jones, Harrah's senior vice-president for communications and government relations, at the Asian Casinos Expo 2004.

Meanwhile, the Philippines is speeding up a US$15-billion project to relocate Manila's casinos to Manila Bay over the next three to five years, pending government approval, said the head of the Philippines Amusement and Gaming Corp (Pagcor).

"We are playing catch-up. Even though Singapore's project hasn't been announced yet, it is attracting immense interest," said Mr Rafael Francisco, president of the state-owned Pagcor, which runs all the 16 casinos in the Philippines.

US-based MGM Mirage said on Monday that it would build a casino in Macau with Ms Pansy Ho, whose father and business partner, Mr Stanley Ho, controls SJM. The cost of the joint venture was not disclosed but UBS Warburg estimated it at up to US$500 million. — Dow Jones

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

JUNE 28, 2004
Asia puts its chips on the gambling industry
By Glenys Sim

SUDDENLY, it seems, everyone in Asia is placing bets on gambling.

While Singapore debates the merits of having a casino on its soil, others such as Thailand, Japan, Taiwan and Indonesia are getting into the act by relaxing or relooking their anti-gambling laws to allow for casinos.

Those which already have them, such as Macau and the Philippines, are trying to stay ahead of the game by sprucing up what they have to offer to the high rollers from the region.

The buzz was clear at a casino conference held in Singapore last week.

The record number of more than 1,000 participants, from gaming company bigwigs to officials, made the event the biggest in nine years.

Quite obviously, what lies behind the surge of interest is the high payoff on offer.

Asians spend about US$14 billion (S$24 billion) a year on gambling, including illegal betting offered by underground operators taking advantage of tough laws.

By 2010, they are expected to spend US$23 billion on anything from blackjack, jackpot and roulette to lotteries like 4-D in the region and beyond, industry experts at the conference predicted.

'Asians love to gamble,' Dr Ambrose So, director of the Sociedade de Jogos de Macau (SJM), which until last month had a monopoly on Macau's casinos, told The Straits Times.

Add to that East Asia's booming economies, most notably China's, and the expected explosion in tourism that will result, it is no wonder that governments are putting their chips on the industry.

It's also no wonder that Dr So's company and the likes of United States gaming giants MGM-Mirage and Caesars Entertainment, all here last week, are looking for elbow room at the table.

Governments are not just salivating at the taxes that betting will bring in - one estimate is that here, they could account for as much as a fifth of the Government's revenue - they also know that gamblers from overseas also splurge on hotels, food and entertainment like other tourists.

For that reason, established players are remodelling casinos-only destinations into 'destination resorts' with all the tourist frills.

For instance, Macau's 'gambling king' Stanley Ho plans to spend US$380 million on three new trump cards, namely, Macau Fisherman's Wharf, Ponte 16 and East-West Cultural Village.

The sell: 'Macanese hybridised culture that distinguishes it from the rest of the world and keeps people coming back'.

The state-owned Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (Pagcor), which runs all 16 casinos in the country, is betting US$15 billion in a mega-project on Manila Bay which will come with a theme park, hotels, shopping malls and condominiums.

Oh, there will be three casinos there too.

Meanwhile, others are placing wagers elsewhere - just in case.

Malaysia's sole casino operator Genting Berhad, for instance, is diversifying by boosting its power-generation business in the face of possible competition from Thailand and Singapore.

Singapore's idea runs along the same not-just-a- casino line.

The casino will be part of giant resort and residential development in the Southern Islands, complete with hotels and convention centres.

Besides Macau's SJM, others have stated their interest in the project: US gaming giants like MGM-Mirage, Caesars Entertainment and Harrah's Entertainment, Vienna-based Casinos Austria International (CAI) and Genting Berhad.

CAI's chief executive Frank McFadden said at the conference: 'Singapore's infrastructure can support the casino by extending quality tourism, while the air links, hotels and other entertainment facilities are already here.'

But casino operators looking to Asia say that the biggest jackpot will be China with its growing economy and 1.2 billion people.

'Now that China is opening up and more and more people travel more freely, I think this is a tremendous market for everyone,' said SJM's Dr So.

For the first time last year, tourist arrivals in Macau from China outgrew the number of visitors from Hong Kong - and visitors mostly go to Macau for one main thing.

Las Vegas casino executives think that China will be the fastest growing source of big-time punters who blow upwards of S$3,000 per trip and for whom casinos lay out the red carpet.

Concerns about the social ills of gambling that make some countries such as Singapore hesitant about casinos are being pushed aside by the lure of this pot of gold.

Some governments have chosen to lessen the negative social impact by restricting access to some or all locals or by locating casinos in remote areas.

Casino advocates, however, argue that those not allowed to indulge in their poker in their home country will simply go overseas or go online. And that those who cannot bet legally will do so underground.

Gaming consultant, Professor Andy Nazarechuk of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said: 'People who have a gambling problem already have one. It's not as if they would develop a problem once gambling becomes legal.

'In fact, legalising it would help surface the problem.'

However valid this argument, there is little doubt that some will find the economic argument too strong to fold on.

Even if Singapore baulks in the end, expect other countries to go with the roll.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCORECARD: Casinos in the region

Cambodia: About 23 licensed and unlicensed casinos, many of them in the Thai-border town of Poipet.

China: Casinos are illegal, except in the Special Administrative Region of Macau.

Hong Kong: Casinos are illegal, but not horse-racing and lotteries run by the Hong Kong Jockey Club.


India: Some casinos with limited facilities found in the western state of Goa. In 2002, the government proposed to introduce Vegas-style casinos in the northern state of Punjab.


Indonesia: Casinos are banned in Indonesia, although many underground venues can be found in Batam. It is considering lifting the gambling ban in Jakarta.


Japan: Casinos are illegal but quasi-casinos can be found in the form of pachinko and pachi-slot parlours. Last year, Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara proposed legalising casinos.


Laos: One licensed casino, Dansavanh Casino, in Ban Muang Wa-Tha, 60km from the capital of Laos.


Macau: 13 licensed casinos, including the latest Sands Macau by US giant Las Vegas Sands Inc. The other 12, run by Stanley Ho's Sociedade de Jogos de Macau, achieved revenues of US$3.7 billion last year. In the works are two more casinos by Hong Kong hotel tycoon Lui Che Woo and American casino entrepreneur Steve Wynn.

Malaysia: One licensed casino, Casino de Genting, in Genting Highlands.


Myanmar: Five licensed clubs, with table games like blackjack and slot machines, in provinces along the Myanmar-Thailand border. Many unlicensed casinos in provinces bordering China.


North Korea: One licensed casino in a five-star hotel in Pyongyang.

Philippines: 16 licensed casinos run by state-owned firm Pagcor, whose earnings hit some US$357 million last year.


Singapore: Casinos are illegal, but not betting on horse-racing run by the Singapore Turf Club, and lotteries and sports betting run by Singapore Pools. Singapore also has more than 80 society clubs operating more than 2,000 slot machines. In March this year, the Singapore Government threw up the idea of opening a casino.


South Korea: 13 licensed casinos, but only one open to Korean nationals. They raked in US$917 million last year.

Taiwan: Casinos are illegal. It is looking at allowing gambling in remote, offshore islands such as Kinmen and Penghu.


Thailand: Casinos are illegal. The only form of gambling allowed are government lotteries and horse-racing in specific locations on specified days. In March, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra won overwhelming support from the House of Representatives for his move to legalise gambling.


Vietnam: One licensed casino, Do Son Casino, in Do Son. In Mong Cai, Lao Cai and Halong Bay, there are some clubs that are licensed to operate a limited number of table games.

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 14 Jul 2004

Singapore offers glimpse of casino proposal

SINGAPORE -The Government has offered a glimpse at plans for a proposed gambling and entertainment complex, including hotels, a convention centre, and a theme park to rival Hong Kong's soon-to-open Disneyland.

Minister of State for Trade and Industry Vivian Balakrishna called the development that will likely be located on southern Sentosa island as Singapore's 'Integrated Entertainment Centre, distinctive, world-class development with a comprehensive range of amenities.'

Sentosa Chief Executive Darrell Metzger said one of those 'amenities' includes a large-scale theme park that aims to lure tourists away from Disney's multi-billion dollar theme park in Hong Kong.

It was not immediately clear if the decision on the theme park was contingent on plans for a casino on Sentosa, which will be decided on by the end of the year.

Forty hectares of land at the northern part of Sentosa have been reserved for the proposed theme park, which would cost as much as $700 million.

He said Sentosa is in talks with Australia's Village Roadshow and another overseas theme park operator.

Both Mr Balakrishnan and Mr Metzger were speaking at a four-day international amusement parks expo in Singapore.

Singapore officials have been meeting Las Vegas and Macau casino operators over the past few months, following an announcement in March that it was looking to build a casino valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

But since the announcement, Singapore officials have remain tight-lipped on the development, saying only that they would study all proposals and that the facilities might only be open to Singapore's elite and overseas visitors.

US Casino giants MGM Mirage, Harrah's Entertainment and Las Vegas Sands have all expressed interest in the Singapore proposal.

Legal gambling in Asia is worth as much as US$8 billion annually and the bulk of that is spent in Macau.

Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines are all considering projects to win over a huge chunk of Asia's gambling dollar.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

JULY 14, 2004
Church body makes stout stand against casino

THE National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) has come out strongly against the idea of having a casino.

The council, representing the Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyterians among others, had this clear message in its four-page statement to its member churches on Wednesday: 'We speak against the building of a casino in Singapore.'

Casinos, it said, undermine moral values and virtues.

The move will in the long-run go against the Government's aim of having a family-friendly society, it said.

The statement came on the same day Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister of State (Trade and Industry and National Development) reiterated, at an international meeting of amusement park companies, that the Government was deciding whether to build the planned casino within an integrated entertainment centre that includes convention facilities, hotels, retail shops and restaurants.

The Government has long resisted calls to allow a casino but will decide by January, after carrying out extensive consultations and a careful study of its social and economic implications.

The proposed casino on Sentosa island has been criticised despite Government assurances that measures will be taken to control the negative effects of gambling.

In the letter to churches, a copy of which was given to The Straits Times, the NCCS said Singapore should hold fast to the good values and virtues nurtured and taught by various organisations, including religious organisations, clan associations and educational institutions.

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 14 July 2004 2218 hrs

Leisure firms may invest $1b to build theme park and entertainment centre
By Ken Teh, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE : World-class leisure companies are looking to invest some $1 billion to build a theme park and entertainment centre in Singapore, participants at the the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions Expo have said.

Imagine a Singapore SeaWorld like the one in Australia.

A multi-million dollar mega-theme park in the same league is going to be built on the resort island of Sentosa.

"The total investment for the theme park project will be anywhere from S$300 million to maybe S$600 to S$700 million depending on the final design of the park," said Darrell Metzger, chief executive of Sentosa Leisure Group.

"The area we have available for the theme park is actually at the entrance to Sentosa island and its roughly about 40 hectares," he said.

Australia's Village Roadshow has already put in a proposal.

"We're looking for something that's very conducive to Singaporean life, possibly in the marine area with rides. It's got to be very much a family park," said John Menzies, chief executive of Warner Village Theme Parks.

"The size of the park will probably be similar to the size of park we have in Australia. We run Seaworld and Warner Brothers Movie World there."

But there is another entertainment investor also eyeing the resort island, although Sentosa refuses to say who that is.

So any mega-project will only get the go-ahead at the end of this year.

Coincidentally, that is the same timeframe for the Government's decision on a casino in Singapore, possibly on Sentosa.

Singapore Tourism Board assistant chief executive Gerald Lee said, "Right now the government is assessing the possibility of having integrated urban entertainment that may have a casino inside the development. Potentially, some of this would have some consideration on whether the land requirement in Sentosa would also be necessary to be set aside for such a development."

But in the past 24 hours, the island's National Council of Churches issued a statement saying a casino is "not in Singapore's national interests" even if access to locals is restricted.

The casino idea aside, there are other leisure investors eyeing Singapore.

Ripley Entertainment is planning to build a massive US$350 million entertainment centre in Singapore, though it won't say where.

Its president Robert Masterson said, "The scale of the project -- it would be a very, very large project ... It would be something in the order of magnitude of 20 hectares and probably the cost would be in the vicinity of US$350 million. It'll be the largest project in the history of our company."

Apart from Sentosa, another possible location is a new urban entertainment centre being built in the Bras Basah-Bugis area. - CNA

Copyright © 2004 MCN International Pte Ltd

sounds exciting... can't imagine what ripley would build for that much money....

Hope it'll be better than the one at Genting.

AUG 17, 2004
S'pore invites foreigners to buy homes on Sentosa

SINGAPORE eased rules on the foreign ownership of homes here by inviting offshore investors to buy homes on Sentosa island on Tuesday.

Under the new arrangements, foreigners can now buy homes in Sentosa Cove - marketed as a playground for the region's rich and famous - with less hassle.

It's hoped the move will 'attract an international pool of desirable individuals to set up their roots in Singapore, build up an emotional attachment to Singapore ... and bring in new businesses into Singapore', Sentosa Cove Chief Executive Bernard Kong said.

'Other countries have done that.... We have to be in the game, we have to be relevant,' he added.

Governments in the Bahamas, the United Arab Emirates and France have already been building super-rich havens, offering developers and individuals tax breaks and incentives to live and run businesses there - perks that Sentosa Cove executives say they are happy to discuss with prospective buyers and relevant Government bodies.

Singapore's new rules will allow foreigners to buy homes or land parcels on Sentosa Cove if the buyers plan to live in them and don't own more than one of such homes in Singapore.

The move marks a departure from existing rules that limit foreign ownership of homes. Also, in most instances foreigners in the country can only buy apartments in blocks with more than six stories.

Sentosa Cove will launch a second sale of sites on Wednesday, and executives hope that foreigners, enticed by the new rules, will snap up 10 to 20 per cent of the 14 new sites.

Sentosa Cove will be holding road shows in Hong Kong, China, Thailand, Malaysia and Australia, and may even market the sites in Dubai, said Darrell Metzger, Chief Executive of Sentosa Leisure Group, which is developing the resort island.

The Sentosa Cove development is expected to be completed by 2008. -- AP

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 23 Aug 2004

S'pore to invite casino proposals with entry curbs

Citizens below a certain income threshold may be barred

(SINGAPORE) Singaporeans earning less than a certain income may be barred if the government decides to give the greenlight for a casino, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last night.

This is one restriction it may apply to meet the concerns of Singaporeans who oppose the starting of a casino for social reasons. And it will invite proposals to see if a casino will still make money for investors with these and other restrictions it will draw up.

'We will find reasonable restrictions, draw a line, call for proposals, test the market,' Mr Lee said. 'Let's see what proposals come in. If it makes sense, and people think it's worth doing commercially, we make a judgement, we proceed. If it's not worth the downside risks, then we call it off. We will consider all views before deciding.'

Mr Lee said the objections to a casino are valid, which is why the government has rejected the idea for so long. But this time, it should not just say no outright.

Conditions have changed and competition to win tourists in the region is fierce, he said. 'If we want more tourists and double the visitors... we don't want them to come here because of gambling, but if it's one of the things they want to do, then maybe we will allow them to do that in Singapore,' he said.

'I think we should think about it,' Mr Lee said. 'We should consider, can we have a casino and still contain the social problems? Let's study it.'

The issue is not in black and white. 'It's looking for an appropriate middle way where we can have our cake and also eat most of it,' he said.

'Increasingly the world is going to be like that,' Mr Lee said. 'China opened up. Deng Xiaoping said when you open the window, the flies will fly in. So you can't close the window. You just have to have a fly swatter, a fly trap, have one of these UV lights to zap them. But keep the windows open and keep your interior as clean and as hygienic for your own people as possible.'

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 30 August 2004 1940 hrs

Singaporeans split over casino: NewsRadio 93.8/TODAY survey
By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE : Singaporeans are split over the idea of a casino, but many think the pro-family measures will work.

This was the conclusion of a survey of some 140 people about Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's first National Day Rally Speech.

The survey, carried out by Media Research Consultants, was commissioned by NewsRadio 93.8 and MediaCorp's TODAY newspaper.

Should the Government allow a casino to be built within an integrated entertainment centre?

This is the one issue Mr Lee spoke about during his first National Day Rally speech that has attracted mixed views.

A total of 36 percent of Singaporeans say the Government should not go ahead with the plan, even if there are measures to minimise the social risk.

But 39 percent say it is okay to have a casino; 20 percent have no opinion and the rest refused to comment.

"Some people told me don't raise it, your first rally speech, very dangerous. We have to be prepared to accept a diversity of views and to listen to the debate. The government will consider all views before deciding," Mr Lee said on August 22.

And Singaporeans believe Mr Lee.

Some 63 percent are confident that their views will be taken into consideration by the government, while only 4 percent think they will be ignored.

The rest either had no opinion or refused to answer the question.

While the survey found that views are sharply divided over the casino, Singaporeans were much more supportive about the pro-family measures.

Six in 10 think the measures, like longer maternity leave and lower maid levies, are bold and will boost birth rates.

On the whole, almost 75 percent of those surveyed say they are confident about Singapore's future under Mr Lee.

Some 21 percent had no opinion, 4 percent refused to answer and only one person surveyed said he was not confident.

The survey participants are aged between 15 and 50.

Seventy are men and 73 women; 24 percent, the largest group of participants, are blue collar workers. - CNA

Copyright © 2004 MCN International Pte Ltd

Business Times - 02 Sep 2004

Property giants jostle for piece of casino action

CapitaLand, Hong Leong said to be working with foreign operators

By DANIEL BUENAS

(SINGAPORE) Local property developers look set to muscle in on a Singapore casino by joining forces with foreign gaming operators, industry sources say.

BT understands that at least two big developers - CapitaLand and the Hong Leong Group - have had talks with overseas players to explore possible tie-ups should the government agree to a casino here.

'City Developments (Hong Leong Group's property arm) is interested in all projects, but our interest in any potential casino development will depend on the government's final decision,' a Hong Leong Group spokesman told BT.

And in a report released yesterday, UBS Investment Research said CapitaLand is likely to be 'at the forefront to directly benefit and participate' in developing a casino because of its good relationship with the government and track record in retail management and project development.

In recent months, several big gaming players - including Hong Kong tycoon Stanley Ho's Sociedade de Jogos de Macau, US-based Harrah's Entertainment and Vienna-based Casinos Austria International - have expressed interest in Singapore.

Another big player, MGM Mirage Development, has not said whether it has had talks with developers here.

'But in general terms, we are excited about the opportunity to participate in the process to bring world-class gaming and resort amenities to Singapore,' executive vice-president Scott Snow said.

Many gaming experts have come to Singapore recently, including Las Vegas-based independent equity gaming analyst Jonathan Galaviz, who was in town two weeks ago to 'consult with local potential players'.

Mr Galaviz is a former senior manager at Mandalay Resort Group, one of the world's largest casino gaming companies.

Next week, Michael Stirling, senior vice-president of International Operations at Caesars Entertainment, is due in town to explore 'the possible opportunity in Singapore', although he has not said whether he will meet developers.

Indeed, Mr Galaviz believes that developers here could choose to move into the industry without the help of casino operators.

'The internal management controls, procedures and information technology used in a casino operation are complex,' he said.

'But they are not beyond the capacity of the senior executive teams that reside in Singapore's property development and hospitality management companies.'

Still, he reckons Singapore developers could benefit from partnering casino operators should they wish to go beyond Singapore - regardless of whether a casino takes root here.

Analysts estimate that Asians spend about US$14 billion a year on gambling, including illegal betting offered by underground operators taking advantage of tough laws. By 2010, they are expected to spend US$23 billion.

Thailand, Japan, Taiwan and Indonesia are getting into the casino scene by relaxing or reconsidering anti-gambling laws. And places that already have casinos, such as Macau and the Philippines, are trying to stay ahead of the game by upgrading what they have to offer. An integrated casino resort typically has three elements: hotel, retail and gaming. CapitaLand and the Hong Leong Group both have extensive experience with hotel and retail developments in Singapore and regionally.

CapitaLand, South-east Asia's biggest developer, has a portfolio of about 12,000 rooms comprising hotels and resorts in 32 places across Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and South America through its subsidiary Raffles Holdings. Its retail portfolio comprises 34 malls throughout the region, which it owns, manages or both.

In Singapore, these include Plaza Singapura, Clarke Quay, Tampines Mall, Junction 8, as well as specialist malls like Funan The IT Mall.

CapitaLand also has stakes in Raffles City Shanghai and Huiteng Metropolis in Xiamen, and manages People's Parade in Wuhan and The Exchange in Tianjin. In Penang, it manages Gurney Plaza.

Hong Leong Group's Millennium & Copthorne owns and operates 91 hotels, with close to 25,000 rooms, in 17 countries.

It is also a major landlord in Singapore with more than 6 million square feet of office space, mostly in the central business district.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

SEPT 4, 2004
Catholic Church opposed to casino here

Though it does not prohibit gambling, it fears high social cost if more addicts are created

THE Catholic Church is opposed to the idea of building a casino in Singapore, a position which mirrors that of some other religious groups here.

Although the Church does not prohibit gambling per se, it feels the casino will exact a high social cost by creating more gambling addicts.

'We are against gambling which leads to the detriment of the individual, his family and the community,' said Archbishop Nicholas Chia in a statement yesterday.

The Government, long averse to the idea of a casino here because of its potential harm to society, is considering reversing the ban because of competition for the tourist dollar from places with casinos, such as Batam.

It will make a decision by January after a careful study of its implications as well as extensive consultations.

At least two big developers, CapitaLand and the Hong Leong Group, have reportedly had talks with foreign gaming operators to explore possible tie-ups.

The casino idea is opposed by both the National Council of Churches of Singapore, which represents the Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyterians, and Pergas, the Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association.

Archbishop Chia, in his four-page statement yesterday, said research in the United States found the gambling industry fosters vice, boosts gambling addiction and causes families to break up.

He asked: 'Can we not do better than resort to casinos? It is not the best long-term strategy for sound economic development. How much is greed the motive?'

Criticising the possible restriction of entry to the proposed casino here, he said: 'If the Government intends the casino for tourists of the region and restricts the admission of locals in order to lessen social costs, how will that denote us as a caring or gracious society?'

He added: 'Just as we continue to strongly discourage drug abuse, smoking and excessive drinking for the good of the country and people, we should also discourage casino gambling by educating one and all on the dangers of gambling addiction.'

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Criticising the possible restriction of entry to the proposed casino here, he said: 'If the Government intends the casino for tourists of the region and restricts the admission of locals in order to lessen social costs, how will that denote us as a caring or gracious society?

i thought barring lower income locals is a gesture of caring.. :?

Business Times - 08 Sep 2004

S'pore firm and Asian casino kingpins go for the jackpot

Cyber Village deal could grow into a big stakes game

THE families that control Asia's two biggest casino empires have formed their first formal partnership - after more than 40 years of rivalry.

Younger members of the Lim family, of Genting fame, and the Ho family, of Macau fame, are using a Singapore company in a small but significant deal that could be a prelude to bigger things.

According to a casino industry executive, the HK$10 million (S$2.2 million) tie-up, which involves Sesdaq-listed Cyber Village, could point to a wider alliance between the gaming groups.

And the executive isn't ruling out the possibility of them joining forces to bid against US titans in what could be the next big bet - a Singapore casino.

For now, Cyber Village will help develop a customer loyalty programme for a company that handles slot machines in the gambling enclave of Macau.

Cyber Village is linked to Justin Leong - 26-year-old grandson of Genting founder Lim Goh Tong - who is seen as being groomed for a management role in the Genting gaming empire.

The Macau slot machine company is controlled by Lawrence Ho - the eldest son of gambling king Stanley Ho, who had a casino monopoly on Macau until 2002.

The contracts covering the tie-up were awarded by Mr Lawrence Ho's Hong Kong-listed IT company Elixir and wrapped up in the presence of Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in Cyberjaya at the weekend.

The Lim and Ho families have been seen as rivals since Mr Ho rebuffed an offer from Mr Lim to jointly develop Malaysia's Genting casino in the late 1960s.

Mr Lim, who retired this year, recalled in his memoirs, published in 2000: 'I told him (Mr Ho) the purpose of my visit. He responded with a smile without committing anything. I knew what he meant. As I had not obtained the casino licence yet, how could we talk about co-operation.'

The two octogenarians clashed a few years ago when China opened the Macau casino market following the end of Mr Ho's 40-year monopoly.

Mr Lim failed to secure one of the three licences in the tender exercise. Mr Ho captured one licence while the other two were awarded to heavyweights Galaxy Casino/Las Vegas Sands and the Wynn Group.

Cyber Village has clinched a string of jobs since Mr Leong and partners emerged as major shareholders in March and launched a general offer.

These deals include one with Tan Chong & Sons Motor to develop a portal-based vehicle sales, service and order management system, and a venture to provide digital web-TV to a subsidiary of China Netcom. Cyber Village's shares have jumped 36 per cent to 26.5 cents yesterday from 19.5 cents in March.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

SEPT 10, 2004
Say nay to a casino

THE Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech struck a chord with me. Somehow, I felt 'included' and welcome to offer my ideas, even though I may be just an ordinary person. It is on this basis that I have taken up the challenge to offer my views on the casino debate.

I note the need to attract the tourist dollar and the change in the competitive climate. However, did not our leaders also face similar economic pressures in the 1960s (unemployment), 70s (oil crisis), 80s (recession) and 90s (Asian crisis)? Yet, as a nation, we have weathered those storms without compromising our basic beliefs.

Surely, the perceived need to raise money through a casino was equally strong, if not stronger, during those crises, when we were less experienced and economically robust. Despite our vulnerabilities then, our leaders did not follow the example of some countries but opposed the casino idea. It must then have been a delicately difficult decision, one that has made us stronger for it.

For this reason, I marvel at the report that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had been 'dead set against' the casino project ('SM will stay as adviser in new Cabinet'; ST, July 28). I knew he had to make many unpopular decisions during his premiership, but did not know until now that the casino-veto was one of them.

It reminded me of a quote, 'Where tastes are concerned, flow with the tide; where principles are concerned, stand as a rock.' Is it not the strict standards of governance that have led Singapore to where it is today and made it stand out from the crowd?

I was thus not surprised to read the commentary, 'Good govern-ment: You can put a value to it' (ST, Aug 27), by Mr Janadas Devan, who analysed why Singa-pore succeeded when so many other post-colonial states didn't.

Mr Janadas noted pointedly: 'Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh (Keng Swee) and their other colleagues made the right choices because they, and the people they led, were animated by a set of values that made possible correct political, economic and social choices. Leadership consisted of insisting on the primacy of those values and refusing to compromise on them.'

The unflinching stand that our leaders have taken on various issues, including corruption, emanates, I believe, from a moral regime that is part of the foundation of our nation-building. This regime fosters a sense of community and is the linchpin of our economic progress, no matter how the environment changes.

For if we sow good seeds in our people, such as the virtues of thrift, diligence and social responsibility, we will reap generations of good yield. If ever Singapore has to settle for less affluence in order to uphold these fundamental values, let us do so: we may earn less now, but we will get much more later.

The argument against having a casino is all the more compelling as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong acknowledged that a casino has the potential for 'people to go broke and ruin their families'.

Let us not then be the abettor or facilitator of the breakdown of families, even if they are foreigners'. Besides, the temptation of quick money is no respecter of persons, and cuts across all nationalities and income groups.

We have enough anecdotal evidence of people in trusted positions who had succumbed to greed and used money not belonging to them.

There are also the attendant vices that come with casino gambling. So while we solve one problem of attracting some tourists by capitalising on their gambles, we create a host of problems in our small cosmopolitan city with immeasurable social cost. Is it worth it?

If we have a casino on the premise that our people are already gambling on cruise ships, then why should we not also legalise prostitution, as our guys are going to nearby cities for such pleasures?

Once we compromise on our basic beliefs, we may end up in a place where no lines are drawn and our only guiding principle is materialistic well-being.

Already some people are lamenting that Singapore is a banal and artificial place without a soul - the very reason that is turning away some tourists.

Above all, knowing full well that a casino is a kind of bottomless pit that has proven irresistible to many, what messages are we sending to our young? By building a glamorous gambling den-cum-resort in our backyard, are we not endorsing gambling as an attractive recreation?

Surely, we want to steer our young away from the temptations of quick riches, and encourage them to be thrifty and industrious, as our forefathers had been? Let us show them that Singapore can be a resourceful and vibrant home, and yet remain uncompromisingly clean - a house full of treasures that money cannot buy.

YAP SZE HON

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

i thought prostitution was legalised already? well if not, i dont mind.

SEPT 14, 2004
Do CEOs favour having a casino? You bet they do

Fifteen of 17 chief executives surveyed in Business Times poll support the idea. And they have suggestions to avoid potential social ills

SOME of Singapore's top CEOs have come out strongly in favour of opening a casino here, for a variety of reasons.

Some say it is time to get creative and take some risks to maximise opportunities, while others pointed out that many Singaporeans already go elsewhere to gamble, and it makes sense to keep them here and reap the benefits rather than lose them to overseas operators.

The responses to the idea of building a casino here were listed in a Business Times survey of 17 chief executives, including CapitaLand president and CEO Liew Mun Leong, BCS Information Systems chairman Wong Nang Jang and Pointworth Management CEO Dennis See. Of the 17, only two came out against the idea.

The response of Hong Leong Group Singapore executive chairman Kwek Leng Beng was typical among those in favour of giving the green light to the casino idea.

Said Mr Kwek: 'Singapore must move with the times. We should nurture a mindset change.'

Added Tung Lok Restaurants president and CEO Andrew Tjioe: 'We should not be deterred by some of the negative aspects brought about by casinos, just as we are not going to stop eating because we are afraid of choking ourselves.'

The issue of building a casino here was revived after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in his National Day Rally speech last month that it was worth studying the idea.

Noting that many quarters here had resisted it because of the potential social problems it would bring, Mr Lee said: 'I think we should consider: Can we have the casino and still contain the social problems?'

The answer from several of the chief executives interviewed was 'yes'.

Intraco CEO Teng Theng Dar pointed out that a casino area need not be unsuitable for families, as Melbourne's Southbank area - where the Crown Casino is located - has shown.

Mr Teng said his family used to visit the area for its other attractions, including restaurants, and never felt that they were in a casino area.

The businessmen said the key is in striking a balance between the economic impact of a casino and the social responsibility.

Some of the ideas they proposed included a dress code, a minimum-age requirement, members-only entry and selecting an operator with a history of strong compliance with regulatory guidelines.

One point that several of the CEOs made was that having a casino would give a fillip to Singapore's efforts to become a dynamic city.

As Raffles Holdings chairman and CEO Jennie Chua put it: Having a casino can 'add more jazz, colour and exhilarating buzz to Singapore as a destination'.

The two chief executives who were against the idea - BP Singapore president Wu Shen Kong and BBS Holdings Access chairman Behrouz Gholamrezaey - had differing reasons for opposing it.

Mr Wu said the idea could send the message that Singapore was prepared to compromise on its moral values and standards for economic gain, while Mr Gholamrezaey said the casino would not give Singapore any competitive edge.

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 17 Sep 2004

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
CEOs' case for S'pore casino not convincing

I REFER to 'Views From The Top' (BT, Sept 13) which focused on whether Singapore should open up to the casino gaming industry.

An overwhelming majority of your BT CEO's e-Club support the presence of a casino gaming industry in Singapore. This is consistent with how the benefits of the gaming industry are distributed - the profits are privatised while the costs are socialised. I would be interested to see responses to the same question when put to those who have a view of the underbelly of society such as the police, the judiciary, the official assignee and social welfare organisations.

Casinos are a zero sum game. Total winnings must equal total losses less the operating cost of the casino and profits. Yes, I agree, there will be multiplier effects to the tourism, convention and hospitality industries.

Access to casinos abroad and on cruises require planning and travel. Not so for Singapore casino. We are talking about a real-time, walk-in opportunity.

However, I have yet to see a serious study of the likely social ills accompanying such a move. Perhaps the government should consider giving a grant to such studies because it does not appear that the gaming, hospitality or tourism industry is prepared to fund it.

Some suggestions have been put forward to attempt to address the undesirable aspects of casinos:

-Medical treatment of gambling addicts. The problem with addiction is self-denial. At the growth stage of addiction, the addict does not believe he/she is addicted and does not seek help. Self-denial definitively ends with bankruptcy or imprisonment.

-Dress code and membership. This will keep the 'undesirable' elements out. But loan sharks and pimps will still hang around where they can ply their trade - outside the casino.

-Respectable clientele. The problem with casinos is when someone 'respectable' becomes addicted. He/she draws down on all legal forms of debt: credit card, unsecured lines, or secured overdraft. Worse still, the individual in desperation then turns to misappropriating funds from his/her employer or business.

The strongest argument put forward by the BT CEO's e-Club is that casinos are available to Singaporeans in neighbouring countries and on cruises.

However, access to these casinos require planning and travel. Not so for the Singapore casino. We are talking about a real-time, walk-in opportunity for some serious gambling a stroll away from the harbour front.

In the absence of a serious study of the likely social ills of setting up a casino in Singapore, I would like to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. Let us ignore, for the moment, all the social costs associated with broken marriages, neglected children and ruined lives. I would guesstimate that with the opening of a casino, 3 per cent of Singapore's 4 million population will visit it. Of that 3 per cent, only a tiny minority become regulars, say one in a hundred or 0.03 per cent.

Of that 0.03 per cent, about a third or 0.01 per cent will suffer significant financial losses. Of that group that suffers financial losses, one in ten becomes desperate and misappropriates funds from their employer or businesses. The outcome of this rough calculation is that there will be 40 more criminal breach of trust cases.

If each case involves half a million, businesses will have to swallow $20 million in losses due to employee fraud. This is the true meaning of privatising the gains and socialising the costs.

Your readers might think that these numbers are unreasonably high. I urge them to look at the number of lawyers, respectable individuals with an intimate knowledge of the law, that have been caught and charged with misusing client funds.

Alan Lim
Singapore

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 20 Sep 2004

Casino debate: go with the facts, not the movies

Research indicates that problem-gambling is a medical issue, that there's little causal link between gaming and bankruptcies and fraud

By VIKRAM KHANNA

THE issue of legalising casino gaming in Singapore has so far proved every bit as controversial as it had promised to be.

Last Monday, BT ran a number of views from CEOs in Singapore, most of whom supported casino gaming. Ranged against the idea are a number of religious groups, plus many members of the public, who have written to the papers. One particularly thoughtful letter, which BT ran on Sept 17, came from Alan Lim, who argued that the profits of casino gaming are privatised, while the costs are socialised.

This is not quite accurate - as Mr Lim himself conceded, because a casino gaming industry would have positive spin-off effects for the tourism, convention and hospitality businesses, although the likely extent of these in the Singapore context needs to be studied. This means there will be social benefits too, in terms of job creation and higher property values, not just private benefits. There will also, presumably, be taxes on gaming - apart from conventional corporate taxes - and if the additional revenue is used productively, there could be other social benefits as well.

But the more apparently compelling arguments against a casino gaming industry have to do with social costs. And here, it is often suggested (indeed, automatically assumed) that legalisation of gaming will lead to a greater incidence of ills such as bankruptcies, as well as crimes like money laundering, fraud, embezzlement and loan sharking.

Similar concerns were raised when most states in the US started to legalise gaming in 1976. However, the actual evidence runs counter to the popular impressions. The statistics show that in most jurisdictions, crime rates actually declined in the subsequent 20 years. Nor is there any relationship between the legalisation of gaming and the rise of bankruptcies and fraud.

Thus, a March 2000 report by the US Public Sector Gaming Study Commission (PSGSC), a non-partisan organisation of state legislators involved in legislative committees responsible for gaming in their states, stated categorically that 'the majority of the information collected during the past decade indicates there is no link between gambling, particularly casino-style gambling, and crime', confirming the results of earlier research from a number of sources. The PSGSC pointed out that the long-held popular association between crime and casino gaming 'appears to be based on fictional portrayals of the industry' on television and in movies and 'unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence'.

What about the important issue of addictive 'problem gambling'? Again, let's see what the research tells us. A seminal 1998 study by the Harvard Medical School's Division on Addictions estimated that 1.6 per cent of US adults experienced pathological gambling at some point in their lives, while 1.1 per cent experienced it during the past year. The corresponding figures from another study by the National Opinion Research Centre at the University of Chicago were 0.8 per cent for lifetime incidence and 0.1 per cent for past-year incidence.

The studies also found that the incidence of addictive gambling was low compared with that of other psychiatric disorders. For example, the lifetime incidence rate for major depressive episodes was 6.4 per cent and for alcohol dependence, 13.8 per cent (yet we do not see opponents of casino gaming calling for the banning of alcohol).

In addition, it was found that problem gambling was associated with mood disorders such as mania and depression. The University of Chicago research found, for instance, that about 40 per cent of pathological gamblers reported symptoms associated with manic depressive illness.

In other words, the research shows that pathological gambling is not so much a 'vice' as it is a medical issue. Can it be treated? Yes, provided it is recognised for what it is, rather than being viewed as a moral problem and left untreated - as is often the case when gaming takes place underground.

It also helps if some of the social costs for treating (and preventing) problem gambling are 'privatised' by ensuring that the casino gaming industry maintain certain minimum safeguards, such as 'opt-out' agreements (hence entry restrictions) for compulsive gamblers and restrictions on alcohol and ATM machines on gaming floors. The companies can also be required to fund, and cooperate with, agencies that help and treat compulsive gamblers.

And here, an interesting observation from researchers on problem gambling is that the legalisation of gaming can actually cause fewer problems for compulsive gamblers and for society, because norms for controlling and treating the activity are then developed and enforced. By contrast, societies where gaming is not legalised tend to either pretend that 'problem gambling' doesn't exist or do little to deal with it.

So, let's welcome the debate on casino gaming - both for and against. But hopefully, it will be informed more by facts than by assumptions, anecdotes and what we've seen in the movies.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 22 Sep 2004

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Casinos are not worth a gamble

VIKRAM Khanna was faster off the blocks with his article 'Casino debate: go with the facts, not the movies' (BT, Sept 20) than I was in commenting on Alan Lim's letter 'CEO's case for S'pore casino not convincing' (Mailbag Sept 17).

I totally agree with Mr Lim's reservations on a Singapore casino - that the arguments in favour are not convincing, and that a casino is unnecessary and could well have unintended consequences.

Mr Khanna took the line that the issue is 'legalising casino gambling in Singapore'.

At the risk of being pedantic, the 'issue' is, in fact, about establishing a casino in Singapore - there is none at the moment.

Mr Khanna was long on figures in support. But what a pity they all came from the United States.

Although professing a rational approach to allowing a casino, he argued in essence that Mr Lim's attitude is emotional and not supported by statistics and/or facts.

Having spent the greater part of my working life in the stock market - which is essentially a gambling den, even if the activity that goes on there is euphemistically termed 'investment' - I have seen first-hand the many dangers that can arise.

I venture to suggest that there are so many existing avenues to fritter away one's hard-earned money that 'Gamblers Anonymous' outlets would be better for Singapore than a casino.

The lure of gambling is the hope of netting comparatively large sum for a small outlay. But the chance of collecting $3,000, or $2,000 or even $1,000 for $1 can blind some people to the inescapable fact that the odds are stacked heavily against them. They have to be, or no casino could stay in business.

This fact alone - that the people do not get a fair deal for their money - is a convincing argument against setting up a casino in Singapore, and overrides the many pros that Mr Khanna tried to offer in support.

In his maiden National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said: 'We will not make it easy for people to go broke and ruin their families in Singapore.'

I appreciate his sincerity and concern, but wonder just what safeguards can be successful in practice. Any stock broker will tell you the difficulty of dissuading clients from trading beyond their limit when they think they are on the road to El Dorado. For the record, the Singapore Exchange operates five days a week in an area that is termed 'investment' but which in reality is gambling on price trends.

Then there are two weekly Toto draws and thrice-weekly 4-D draws. And let's not forget horse-racing. Or football.

All of these gambling activities are legalised and operate with state approval.

The commonly advanced rationale, which Mr Khanna appears to support, is that revenue from such activities is channelled into social benefits for the needy. But in some cases I have known, the 'need' has been precipitated precisely by the many avenues available for gambling. Low-income people - and even some 'no-income' people - gamble away their pin-money hoping for a windfall, instead of utilising what little they have on essentials. And in essence, this creates the very social problems that proponents say organised gambling will solve, or at least alleviate.

One could hardly say that Singaporeans are starved for choice in gambling. So why have a casino?

Finally, there is little doubt that at some point, a casino in Singapore will attract foreigners seeking to legitimise 'black' money. It is well-known that winning tickets for large sums command a premium. It also seems inevitable that 'money-laundering', which the authorities are keen to keep out of our country, will seep in through the cracks.

At the end of the day, it is possible that Singapore could acquire a reputation for being a haven for illegal activity. And I am not sure how many would favour this as an image. Is 'the Las Vegas of Asean' or 'the Macau of South-east Asia' the sort of title we hope to be known by?

The government has generally been forward-thinking where the public interest is concerned, and has frequently taken pre-emptive action when it felt this necessary. Hopefully, the call for public feedback on a casino is to make an informed judgment - not just 'for the record' in what could turn out to be a fait accompli.

Setting up a casino here, only to find out later that crows have come to roost, is a gamble it would be unwise to take. And there's unlikely to be room to make a U-turn, even though I would bet money on the need for this coming about.


Narayana Narayana
Singapore

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

SEPT 25, 2004
S'poreans split evenly on casino
Survey finds 53% in favour of and 47% against having a casino, with those opposed fearing social costs of gambling

By Lydia Lim

THE ongoing debate over whether Singapore should have its own casino has the population split almost right down the middle.

A Straits Times (ST) survey carried out two weeks ago found that 53 per cent are in favour of having a casino here, while 47 per cent oppose it.

Those in favour believe it will help the country attract more tourists, generate revenue and create jobs.

Those opposed are concerned about the social costs. Nine in 10 of them believe a casino will lead to gambling addiction growing here and causing more family-related problems, while eight in 10 fear a casino will also result in more crime.

Only two-thirds of those who oppose a casino do so because they believe gambling is immoral.

Public policy expert Ho Khai Leong said it is unusual for society to be so evenly split on an issue.

But the casino debate is unique as it pits economic arguments against deeply-felt moral convictions and social values, he said. Probably the only other issue in the past that was so polarising was the debate over legalising abortion, he added.

The ST survey is the first to gauge public sentiment since the casino idea was first broached by the Government in March as part of plans for a top-class resort on the Southern Islands, to draw the world's rich and famous.

Leaders of several religious groups have voiced their opposition to the idea.

But it had not been clear until now where the population at large stands on the issue. The survey by Singapore Press Holdings' research arm polled a representative sample of 376 Singaporeans and permanent residents aged 20 and above.

It found that race is a significant factor, with Chinese the most likely to want a casino here and Malays the least likely. Six in 10 Chinese want it as compared to only two in 10 Malays. Among Indians, 45 per cent are in favour.

Men are also more likely than women to support the idea, but other factors such as age, income and education do not seem significant.

If there is a casino here, most of those polled - 68 per cent - want entry for all adult Singaporeans.

They disagree with a government proposal to limit entry, possibly to tourists and higher-income Singaporeans, as they do not want discrimination between rich and poor. They also believe adult Singaporeans are mature enough to make their own decisions.

As for the 30 per cent who want entry restrictions, they believe the poor need to be protected against gambling losses.

The survey findings also suggest that there are Singaporeans who play with Lady Luck and yet oppose having a casino here.

This is apparent from comparing the number who say they have ever bought 4-D - 66 per cent - with the number who support the casino idea, which is 53 per cent.

Among current forms of legalised betting, 4-D is the most popular followed by Toto, soccer betting and horse-racing. As for visiting casinos, 34 per cent have never done so and 55 per cent have never gambled at one.

The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) yesterday said the findings were useful feedback for its ongoing study.

Within the next few months, it plans to invite proposals from potential investors keen to develop an integrated resort that includes a casino.

This is to test the market and allow the ministry to assess the merits of the proposals.

More details will be released later, it said, adding that the Government has not made a decision on whether or not to go ahead.

MTI also revealed that it had actively pursued ways to develop an integrated resort without the casino component, but 'the private sector has for various reasons decided not to develop such projects here'.

This reflects the intense competition for investments in the region, it said.

The Straits Times understands that one such project that fell through involved theme park developer Disney.

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

SEPT 25, 2004
INSIGHT
The Casino toss-up
If a casino is built, will the economy win big? But will society also lose big? Insight checks out the score in the debate

By Lydia Lim

RETIRED teacher Soh Chiew Peng hates the idea of a casino here even as she recognises that people already gamble here, like at the 4-D and Toto outlets scattered all over the island.

'I'm dead set against them too, but when they introduced those things, they didn't ask us what we thought.'

Mrs Soh, 54, says she knows from personal experience how gambling addictions can tear families apart.

A relative of hers and one former classmate went to jail after they turned to crime to support their gambling habits.

'If the Government wants to boost the economy, there are other ways,' she says.

Mrs Soh has the backing of 47 per cent of the population, according to a recent Straits Times survey.

Their reasons for opposing a casino? The belief that it will cause gambling addiction, family problems and crime to escalate.

But the other half of the population - 53 per cent - see it differently.

They believe Singapore should have its own casino as this will help boost tourism, generate revenue and create jobs.

In this group is Mr Tan Eng Hong, 47, an advertising professional.

He says: 'Casinos are no longer sleazy, shady gambling dens of vice, but glitzy and impressive mega tourist attractions.'

Just look at countries like Australia, says the father of two. It has casinos in many cities and they have not degenerated into crime-ridden hot spots.

Mr Tan is sure a casino's economic benefits will outweigh the social costs but there's little data to back his view, or Mrs Soh's opposing one for that matter.

While the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) has been studying the casino proposal for some months, it has yet to release figures on potential benefits and costs.

What it would say is that no decision has been made yet on whether or not to proceed. It reiterated that it is considering proposals to build an integrated resort with a casino component and not a standalone casino.

Similar developments overseas have resulted in large investments, significant increases in visitor numbers and the creation of jobs, the ministry tells Insight.

It says that it is also mindful of the potential social impact of the casino component and 'will put in place appropriate social safeguards if we decide to proceed'.

National University of Singapore economist Choy Keen Meng says what makes the casino decision different from other public policy issues is the difficulty in carrying out a cost-benefit analysis.

'No one denies the social consequences of a casino but how do you measure them? How do you quantify the cost of a ruined family, for example?'

This problem could explain why the Government has for so long resisted calls from the business community to allow a casino here, he says.

A MINUS?

THE lack of conclusive evidence on how casinos affect communities is not for want of trying.

Researchers in countries like the United States, Australia and New Zealand have in recent years attempted to measure casinos' social and economic impact.

These studies show that casinos affect different communities differently and commonly-held assumptions about how casinos are supposed to help or hurt societies often do not hold water.

Take for example the view that casinos will cause crime to escalate.

A 1998 study commissioned by the New Zealand Casino Control Authority, on the impact of newly-opened casinos in Christchurch and Auckland, found this was not the case.

In Christchurch, for example, rates of certain types of crimes, such as liquor offences, burglary and fraud, fell after the casino's opening, although it remains unclear what prompted the better behaviour.

Yet another study, this one funded by America's National Institute of Justice, covered seven cities or counties in the US where casinos had opened recently. It too found few consistent trends in crime.

In three of the areas studied, more types of crimes increased than decreased. In another three, more types of crimes went down rather than up. In the last city, there was little change for most crimes.

The results were also mixed when the researchers compared suicide and divorce rates in these communities against rates in similar communities without casinos.

However, personal bankruptcies went up significantly in five of the seven casino communities when compared to the control groups.

Another big worry among critics of casinos is that they will cause more people to become addicted to gambling.

This was indeed the top concern among the 47 per cent who said 'no' to a casino in the recent Straits Times survey.

The New Zealand study found that the number of people seeking help for gambling addiction did in fact increase after the two casinos opened. But part of this jump could have been due to increased publicity on problem gambling and the support services available, researchers said.

A similar upsurge in the number of gamblers seeking help can be expected if a casino opens here, says Dr Munidasa Winslow, who heads the Institute of Mental Health's Community Addictions Management Programme.

That has been the trend whenever a new form of gambling is legalised, he says, and, for that matter, whenever local newspapers run stories on problem gambling.

Whether a casino will significantly increase the number of gambling addicts is in his view difficult to tell.

It will depend on whether the casino enlarges the total pool of gamblers or draws largely on the existing pool of regular gamblers, he says.

'Studies show that when people take part in potentially addictive activities like drinking or gambling, the percentage of those who develop problems is always about the same.

'So the higher the total number of gamblers, the more addicts there will be.'

That is why Dr Winslow thinks there is a basis for restricting casino access to minimise impulse gambling, which is what can cause the pool of gamblers to swell.

OR A PLUS?

HE economic benefits of casinos may be easier to quantify but the interpretation of the results can spark a debate that is as open-ended as the one over social costs.

Of those polled in the Straits Times survey, 53 per cent said 'yes' to a casino here because they expect it to boost tourism, revenue and job creation. Gaming industry players certainly agree with this reading.

Those in Singapore recently, for a conference on gaming, projected that by 2010, Asians will spend US$23 billion (S$39 billion) a year to gamble in the region and beyond.

So is it a matter of build it and they will come?

Dr David Marshall of the Australian National University's Centre for Gambling Research doubts so.

Singapore will face tough competition from established casinos in Macau and Australia and new casinos being planned in countries in the region, such as Thailand and the Philippines, he points out.

'So the question is why would tourists who want to gamble choose to go to Singapore instead of somewhere else?

'Furthermore, in terms of encouraging non-gambling tourists to gamble, well, maybe that could occur but generally, it is agreed that casinos do not necessarily produce extra spending but simply displace spending from other sectors,' he tells Insight via e-mail.

And while tourism is often used to justify the building of a casino, Dr Marshall says that from what he knows, the bulk of casino earnings in Australia comes from locals.

In South Korea too, where the revenue from the one casino that admits locals exceeds the total revenue of the 13 foreigner-only casinos.

MTI is distancing itself from the experiences of such standalone casinos by emphasising that its proposal is for an integrated resort that will also feature world-class entertainment shows, theme attractions, convention facilities, luxury retail outlets and fine dining.

It is these other amenities that are likely to draw larger numbers of international visitors to Singapore, it says, especially now that casinos are being legalised in so many parts of the world.

'For many world-class resorts, it is the non-gaming amenities that attract large numbers of visitors,' it says.

The gaming and non-gaming facilities complement each other, it adds, and become viable because of the number of visitors drawn to the wide range of entertainment options.

Examples of such integrated resorts include Atlantis on Paradise Island in the Bahamas, a tropical resort with a marina, giant water park and spa; and the luxurious Bellagio complex in Las Vegas, with its opulent lobby and fountains, world-famous restaurants and shows by Cirque du Soleil.

About 7.2 million people visit Bellagio every year while Atlantis draws one million visitors annually.

The revenue for Bellagio is close to US$1 billion a year, and it is just over US$500 million a year for Atlantis. The resorts employ 8,000 people each.

MTI says major international investors have expressed keen interest in developing a similar resort here. It plans to invite proposals from them within the next few months.

In line with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's promise that the Government will consider all views before deciding, the Feedback Unit has been conducting dialogue sessions with various parties, including religious groups, grassroots leaders and the business community.

Given the strong arguments on both sides, and the fact that the population is split almost right down the middle, this is one issue that will surely test the Government's powers of persuasion.

Its challenge is to forge a final compromise that is acceptable to most, if not all, Singaporeans.

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 29 Sep 2004

Opening up to casino gaming

WITH the public debate on whether Singapore should open up to the casino gaming industry now raging, it is worth setting out some of the issues that would need to be considered in making the decision on whether and how the industry should be opened up to participation.

The government should be in no immediate hurry to decide, because many of the issues will require careful study. Doing these would be well worth the time, given the importance of the decision and the stakes involved.

At the strategic level, it needs to be considered whether opening up to casino gaming would in any way compromise Singapore's standing and reputation as an orderly, 'clean-living', yet vibrant city. While some observers have expressed concerns that this would indeed happen, such fears should be verified against the facts. One sometimes overlooked fact is that while indeed the casino-gaming industry has had murky origins and was linked to organised crime in the past, it has evolved considerably since then. Today's major gaming companies are listed corporations, which are professionally run and subject to a high degreeof regulation. Moreover, casino gaming is only part of their business, and often not the largest part. In many cases, hospitality, entertainment, retail activities and conventions account for the bulk of their revenues. Moreover, they often cater not just to gamblers but to families. And even where they are confined to casino gaming, this activity is to be found in scores of cities across the United States and Australia as well as London. None has suffered a loss of standing or reputation as a result - and nor should Singapore.

The net social benefits and costs of a casino in Singapore would also need to be studied.

On the benefits side, in principle at least, the gains could be considerable. There could be job creation in a wide range of leisure-related industries. Integrated complexes that include casino gaming could also stimulate new activities in the construction, retail, entertainment and hotel sectors. And strong growth in leisure-related industries generally could further diversify the sources of growth. However,the extent of these benefits would depend on the levels of new investments forthcoming in the gaming industry once it is opened up - which in turn would depend on the incentives offered - as well as projected increases in tourist arrivals, and the extent of restrictions, if any, on local patronage of casino gaming. Developments elsewhere in the region - the expansion of casinos in Macau, Genting and Australia and their possible development in Thailand, Japan and Indonesia - will also need to be tracked. And here, Singapore would need to be mindful of the danger of overcapacity in the gaming industry. On the cost side, hard-headed assessments should be made of, in particular, social costs - such as 'pathological gambling' as well as crime. And here, it will be important to eschew emotional arguments and base judgements on rigorous studies, done elsewhere around the world, as well as locally. Meanwhile, the public debate will no doubt continue. And hopefully, over time, it will be informed more by facts and less by popular impressions of what the casino gaming industry is all about.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 29 Sep 2004

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Why it is futile banning a casino

I REFER to the article by Alan Lim (BT, Sept 27), which says that a casino has no place in Singapore.

It cites a Professor John Kindt, who argues that social costs of gambling are much higher than economic benefits.

However, further research will show that this evidence lies squarely in the anti-casino camp, and a more neutral study can be found in the National Gambling Impact Study Commission Final Report, the result of a three-year study by the US Government of the costs and benefits of gambling (not just casinos) dated June 1999. The website where this can be found is govinfo.library.unt.edu

All interested Singaporeans should take a look at this report, which has an executive summary that runs into 63 pages, and a very comprehensive main report that covers all the issues of the debate in America, with many of the conclusions relevant to us in Singapore.

The neutral conclusion in this report about economic benefits and social costs is that this is too difficult to measure (even in America, where many more studies have been made), much less quantified by the 1:3 benefit-cost ratio cited in the article. While Singapore's economic planners should not ignore any social costs in trying to capture the obvious economic gains, it is fast becoming a fact that there may not be a choice for Singapore in this matter.

If Singapore should succeed as a low-cost carrier transport hub, the many casinos sprouting in the region are almost as good as being in Sentosa. There is no question that all these countries planning casinos fully intend to tap the Singaporean gambling crowd and tourists.

Our government may take on the social burden of protecting our citizens from their own folly by not having a casino, but would other governments care for Singaporeans in the same fashion? Of course not.

So the economics of the air transport industry will intensify the competition for the tourist dollar, with every country in Asia targeting each other's population as their hinterland.

Why should Singapore without a casino fight this coming tourism battle with one arm tied behind its back?

If we take the moralistic stance, should we then impose charges on budget airlines destined for casino towns? While we are at it, why don't we close down the Turf Club, all the lotteries and every form of gambling which Singaporeans already indulge in every day? Where will it end?

Yeong Wai Cheong,
CFA
Singapore

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

But St John & Lazarus Islands are nature reserves...
How to build?

Business Times - 29 Sep 2004

Be cautious - and have two casinos

By RONALD TAN

I HAVE been following the arguments over the past six months on the wisdom of having a casino in Singapore.

Many well-written articles against a casino have appeared. Some of them have expressed fears of yet another 'gaming' activity (a better word for gambling) which will add to horse-racing (live and off-course betting) and the five gaming products operated by Singapore Pools.

Since the opening of the casino in Genting and my involvement in operating its first Singapore representative office, I have seen a casino's potential in luring tourists.

I saw so many Singaporeans visiting Genting that I felt compelled to urge our authorities to consider opening a casino. I began writing to the then Singapore Tourism Promotion Board (STPB, now called STB) in 1981.

Their answer was that Singapore was not yet ready for a casino. I then continued writing in to the newspapers and even invited one of our Cabinet ministers to visit the Genting casino in the late 1970s. He agreed personally that a casino per se was not bad, but the spin-offs like loan sharks, underworld activities and people losing control of themselves were serious potential problems. As his was a personal visit, nothing official came of it.

I believe Singapore can run a world-class casino with few of its negative side effects and make it a great entertainment showpiece which could be a global example of how casinos could be run.

We take great pride in SIA, Changi, Kranji and many of our products and services, which are state-of-the-art. We can do the same with a casino, which would have great economic benefits in terms of tourism, state revenue and job creation.

More and more countries are recognising this in Asia. Japan, Taiwan, Thailand and Indonesia are among the countries seriously considering setting up casinos.

When we look at the situation at home, let's consider the current reality of gaming in Singapore. Last year, over S$5 billion was wagered on gaming here, and this excludes probably another S$2 billion in underground betting and gambling. In addition, Singaporeans gamble another S$1.8 billion to S$2 billion in casinos outside Singapore. No less than 1,000 Singaporeans leave the country every day to gamble on cruise ships or in Batam, Genting and many other casinos all over the world.

Many of us are ignorant of the odds that are offered by casinos. In table games, the odds are close to even money, ranging between 95 and 98 per cent (roulette 97 per cent, blackjack 94 per cent and baccarat 97.5 per cent) compared to the poor odds that our bettors get in horse-racing, 4-D, Toto, slots and, more recently, football betting. One can hardly find anyone who can claim that they have won money in these gaming activities while those going to casinos can claim that one out of four do make money.

It is the human factor and our inherent character weaknesses that put us at a disadvantage in the casino. Our authorities could control such weaknesses and abuse by discouraging loan sharks, limiting opening hours (to 18 hours, for example) and disallowing the use of credit facilities.

Like some Australian casinos, there could also be a requirement to have psychologists working on the gaming floor to detect problem gamblers, who should be discouraged from visiting the casino.

These are just a few of the ideas that Singapore could implement to ensure that our citizens can have safeguards as well as assistance. Moreover, those with problems would be able to get help within our own jurisdiction and not fall prey to foreign casinos, where they get no help.

Singapore should not rush into building huge entertainment complexes with casinos in their midst. Our island is already, in a sense, a theme city with everything in place - great hotels, shopping, food & beverage outlets, spas, golf courses, marinas, Kranji, the Esplanade. Adding a casino will be an additional catalyst to make Singapore a great and vibrant city.

One idea could be for Singapore to start with a local organisation forging a partnership with a strong overseas casino operator with technical expertise.

There should initially be two locations, one in Sentosa (near the proposed Marina) for VIP players. These would be members admitted by invitation. In Monte Carlo and the London clubs, many such players value such discretion. Such a high-end establishment could be a big attraction to some of the top tycoons, businessmen and other high-net-worth individuals visiting or even living in Singapore for a short period.

For other tourists and locals, we could operate another casino with a huge gaming hall (over 350 tables) either at Kranji Turf Club or another suitable location (like Turf City). Foreigners would be admitted automatically unless they have a criminal record while local membership could be permitted to those who pay income tax and have a clean credit history.

Each member admitted could be given a smart card, which would record their turnover with points awarded. These points could be redeemed all over Singapore through partnerships with selected hotels, F&B outlets, shops and spas.

Such an arrangement would enable many such outlets to share in the revenues generated by the casino industry in Singapore instead of such revenues being monopolised by gaming industry players.

Singaporeans can also benefit if casino operators sponsor some world-class performances at the Esplanade, Indoor Stadium and other venues at more affordable prices than at present. As they do in Las Vegas, casino gaming operators should also sponsor charities and even training institutions.

In addition to drawing huge numbers of tourists who will visit and stay longer in Singapore instead of going to Batam or Genting, this would also tap into a growing market for training and educational services to serve the fast-growing casino gaming industry.

The suggestion to start with two casinos under one management would be a modest and cautious approach to test the market. During this learning period, we could also implement many controls to minimise social problems. If these prove successful, we could then consider a bolder approach to this industry and invite some of the top casino operators to bid for new sites and build more elaborate complexes, like the ones in Las Vegas and Macau.

Going slowly has merits. If investors were to make mega-investments, like in Las Vegas, Macau and Australia, they would want quick returns and would accordingly encourage heavier betting and turnover. Most of these big casinos have resorted to organising 'junkets' to bring in high rollers, as well as offering credit facilities. These are elements that would cause ordinary players to over-gamble and end up in trouble.

On top of that, we can have safeguards against over-gambling. One casino manager in Australia told me that if Chia Teck Leng (the former finance manager of Asia-Pacific Breweries who lost millions of dollars in Australia) was an Australian citizen, his activities would have been detected through their credit watch and surveillance systems.

Many of their high rollers are rated and anyone gambling with such large sums would have triggered the warning system. Casinos share information and are linked to credit bureaus. We can have similar arrangements in Singapore.

For those who are still concerned about the social effects of the casino, it is worth pointing out that only a small fraction of our citizens gamble regularly. In fact, less than 40,000 are really hardcore gamblers who visit overseas casinos regularly and another one per cent or 40,000 gamble regularly in illegal gambling dens.

Recent statistics show that an average Singaporean spent only S$57.00 a month on gaming, compared to A$250-300 (S$300-360) per month spent by the average Australian. We are thus relatively restrained when it comes to gambling. And with strict measures in place, it is unlikely that our citizens will turn overnight into casino addicts just because we have a casino in town.

Moreover, those who go overseas to have a flutter will be able to do so in the safety and ambience of their own country.

The author is a consultant specialising in the hospitality industry and has worked as an adviser to casino gaming companies

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.


Business Times - 29 Sep 2004

Do not demonise casinos

While opponents overplay the social costs, legalising gaming has more benefits to offer Singapore's economy

By VIKRAM KHANNA

The opponents of the establishment of casino gaming in Singapore (for example, Alan Lim in BT, Sep 27) have come up with a number of cogent arguments, which need to be answered.

A key point they often ignore is that, unlike Genting, Batam, Macau and London, Singapore is not (and should not be) looking only to casinos when it is considering opening up to the gaming industry. It is looking at integrated leisure complexes, of which casinos are but one element - albeit a vital element.

The complexes would also include facilities for hotels, conventions, retail, food and beverage outlets, entertainment, spas and sporting facilities. These other elements would be a huge draw, collectively bigger than the casino. In fact, major gaming companies such as MGM-Mirage and Caesar's earn most of their revenues from the 'non-gaming' parts of their business.

The positive knock-on effects in terms of job creation should also be viewed in the context of a range of industries, not just casinos. In fact, with integrated leisure complexes, more jobs - many of them high-paying jobs - are likely to be created in non-gaming activities than in gaming.

Opponents of gaming in Singapore pooh-pooh its economic benefits by arguing, as Mr Lim does, that there is 'a finite amount of tourism dollars available and that every dollar spent in a casino is a dollar less for our shops and other tourist attractions'. So net-net, there would be no economic gain, only a redistribution of revenues.

This argument would hold only if it is assumed that the revenue pie would remain unchanged - that there would be no increase in tourism or tourism-related spending after the introduction of integrated leisure complexes that include casinos. If tourism numbers or spending do increase, then it can no longer be said that less will be spent on shops and other tourist attractions.

If the experience of other places where such leisure complexes exist is any guide, tourist arrivals and spending do indeed increase - sometimes considerably - and shops and other attractions benefit, not lose.

But the opponents of gaming in Singapore are most vocal when it comes to the issue of the social side effects of casino gaming. Mr Lim, like other opponents of casino gaming, has cited 'studies' done by one John Kindt of the University of Illinois, who has asserted that for every dollar of revenue generated by the gaming industry, three dollars are lost on account of social costs.

The research of Mr Kindt - a well-known gaming industry-basher in the US - has been roundly criticised and discredited by other economists because it is not peer-reviewed and does not meet the usually rigorous standards required of an academic study. His findings also starkly contrast with those of other, more careful, research from sources that include the Wharton School, the Harvard Medical School and the US Public Sector Gaming Study Commission.

But those issues aside, his findings defy common sense. If indeed the paid out 'costs' arising from gaming exceeded revenues by a factor of three to one, the governments of areas where casinos are located would be severely financially strapped, and the government of the US state of Nevada would have gone bankrupt long ago. This is far from the case.

Most governments in gaming jurisdictions have benefited handsomely from gaming revenues - which they have often used to improve social infrastructure. And the gaming revenues of Clark County, where Las Vegas is located (which amounted to US$7.8 billion in 2003, equivalent to about 60 per cent of Singapore's entire operating revenue last year) have enabled Nevada to abolish state income tax and become one of the most business-friendly and economically dynamic states in the US.

The gaming industry opponents' contention that all the benefits of casinos are private and all the costs are social is just plain wrong: the social benefits can be considerable, depending on how the additional revenue is deployed.

What about the danger of 'problem gambling' getting out of hand? No doubt, problem gambling would be an important issue for the government to address, because it is inevitable that there will be some incidence of this - and indeed, there already is, even without casinos having been legalised. Just like if you build a watersports complex, there will be some accidents and if you legalise alcohol, pubs and bars, there will be some alcoholics, if you permit a casino, there will be some problem gamblers.

But the research from the Harvard Medical School indicates that the incidence of problem gambling (1.6 per cent of the adult population have experienced pathological gambling at some point in their life, 1.1 per cent in the past year) is far below the incidence of alcoholism and mental illnesses (which even the anti-gaming lobby acknowledges) - and problem gamers are no more vulnerable to being 'in denial' than are alcoholics or manic-depressives.

The question is, should the fact that problem gambling exists be sufficient basis to reject the proposal to permit casino gaming? It is akin to asking, should the fact that alcoholism exists be a sufficient reason to ban alcohol, pubs and bars?

When it comes to crime, gaming industry opponents are quick to point to studies that postulate positive links between crime and casino gaming, as Mr Lim has done. However, note that such studies are selective, both in terms of time periods considered and geographies. The fact is that in some gaming jurisdictions over some periods of time, crime has gone up. In the same jurisdictions over different periods of time, crime has gone down. Moreover, what caused crime to go up and down is unclear: there are many factors besides the existence of casinos that could be connected to crime rates.

At a minimum, what we need to look at is what has happened in multiple gaming jurisdictions over a long period of time. This is what was considered by the US Public Sector Gaming Study Commission in its March 2000 report, and why it is appropriate to cite that study. What did the study find? That there is no evidence to link casino gaming and higher crime rates.

This, again, accords with common sense. If there was a mechanical positive relationship between casino gaming and crime, places where the gaming industry has a significant presence, like most Australian cities and the US state of Mississippi would be hotbeds of crime and Las Vegas would be the criminal capital of the world. This is not the case - Las Vegas has a below-average crime rate among large US cities.

It is interesting that the anti-gaming lobby should cite the case of Chia Teck Leng, the finance manager of Asia Pacific Breweries, who lost some $62 million in the process of feeding his gambling habit. But note that Mr Chia lost those millions not in Singapore, but mostly in Australia - Singapore only bore the social costs. Mr Chia's case (and those of others who gamble in places like Batam, Macau, and Genting) is a reminder that problem gambling involving Singaporeans can occur even without the legalisation of casino gaming in Singapore - it will simply occur somewhere else, but Singapore will have to bear the costs without getting any of the benefits.

The key question is, would Mr Chia have dared to play and lose $100 million of his company's money in Singapore had casino gaming been legal here? Perhaps, but if the legalisation is accompanied by appropriate safeguards, such as credit bureau checks, perhaps not.

Indeed, Australian gaming officials have pointed out that if Mr Chia were an Australian, he would not have got away with what he did, because he'd have fallen foul of local credit record checks and been detected early on.

So how should Singapore go about legalising casino gaming? It would be a pity indeed if the government were to do so with severe restrictions on entry, particularly for Singaporeans. This would not be conducive to substantial investments coming in. The positive effects in terms of the boost for ancillary industries like construction, retail and entertainment would be less.

Job creation too would also be limited, as would additional tourism revenues. If Singapore is to legalise casino gaming, it should do so carefully, with all appropriate safeguards and tough regulations on the integrity of the industry, but also boldly. Otherwise it isn't worth the trouble.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 01 Oct 2004

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Think about the moral consequences of casinos

VIKRAM Khanna's case for the serious consideration of a casino here (BT, Sept 29) was excellent. That commentary alone was worth the 85 cents I paid for my copy of The Business Times.

However, I might have been better persuaded (not convinced, mind you - I can never be convinced to support this evil enterprise) if he had been brave enough to tackle the moral aspect of the issue as well.

The first step down the slippery slope was taken when the government decided to legalise gambling in the form of Singapore Pools (a step I am, till today, vehemently against).

Today's developments only prove that we are slipping ever more helplessly into the abyss.

Gambling, need we be reminded, is immoral. Of course, few today would agree with this sentiment outwardly. But - and of this, I have little doubt - the consciences of most, if not all, must concur unequivocally on this point.

Gambling exploits and exacerbates the greed of men, encourages indolence and promotes the blind squandering of hard-earned money.

It takes no pity on hapless children whose addicted parents not only have no time - for months on end - to spend on them, but have also frittered away their college money.

Make no mistake, I am not, as some of you might be led to believe, describing the 'social costs' of a casino to our people (expensive as these might be). No, I am depicting the the potential moral bankruptcy of this country (yes, that is what awaits us at the bottom of the slippery slope).

Now, since moral cost is so difficult to measure (how do you measure depravity?), one can only assume that it is more exorbitant a price than we can ever afford to pay.

The question is, are we ready to pay this price?

If such a frightening prospect does not turn this nation away from building a casino, then I don't know what will.

Elgin Toh Mingyang
Singapore

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 06 Oct 2004

Risks of casino can be managed without outright ban

I AM surprised by a recent survey which showed that 47 per cent of respondents oppose the setting up of a casino in Singapore. It amazes me that despite the dogged dismissal of this concept by the establishment over the years, a marginal majority of 53 per cent of respondents actually believe we should have a casino.

If the authorities decide to go ahead with a casino, a sizeable 47 per cent of Singaporeans will need to be convinced. And to do this, the pro-casino camp needs to do more than put up financial justification.

What really needs to be addressed is the core fear of the no-casino camp: that a casino would unravel the fabric of Singapore society.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with a casino. It's just a place - like plenty of others - where people can bet in the hope of winning. No party intends for anyone to lose a fortune or go bankrupt. In fact, casino operators are the ones who stand to lose if this happens too often, because of the negative publicity it generates.

There are already many ways for people to lose their shirt in Singapore. For a start, they can easily do it in the stock market, So should we ask the authorities to close the stock market? Or to ban share financing?

There will always be people who don't understand what they are doing, who choose to 'invest' more than they can afford and who lack the discipline to quit when things turn bad. But is it fair to hold the authorities responsible for the many things that Singaporeans - just like people elsewhere - are allowed to do?

Can we blame the authorities because people lost money on Amcol shares when they were a designated 'CPF trustee' stock?

Can we blame the authorities because people are allowed to invest their CPF funds in property, buy at the top of the market and end up with a loss?

Can we blame the government because cigarettes are on sale here and people die of cancer through smoking them?

Can we blame the government for troubled marriages because husbands go to massage parlours, which, like it or not, are common in Singapore?

Where does the government's sphere of responsibility end and the individual's begin?

I believe that only a minority of people will end up in dire straits if a casino is set up in Singapore. And to manage this minority risk, we need to design an exception-based system.

Age limits appear to be standard at casinos. Another possibility might be to introduce a banned list of people after their families lodge notices of 'concern' with a government body.

But for my money, the best way to reduce the social risk of a casino is education. Singaporeans should be taught the odds of the various games in the casino. For example, blackjack is a game where the probability actually favours the smart player, and slot machines have one of the worst odds.

In fact, why stop there? Why not start a professional school for the gambling arts? People may be trained in the many aspects of gambling, from probability and counting cards to the proper way to shuffle cards.

Most importantly, they could also be educated about the many dangers of careless and problem gambling.

Such an institute might be so successful that it would become another Singapore brand. Who knows? Graduates could move on to become managers at international casinos.

Personally, high-school math lessons would have been far more interesting had I been taught how to calculate the odds of drawing a royal flush in poker, or winning at Big Sweep.

Therefore, it is my contention that:

The social risk of setting up a casino relates to the minority of individuals going overboard, and should thus be managed using exception-based rules rather than outright bans.

The no-casino camp's concerns are based on a fear that is yet to be proved. Malaysia has had a casino for years, yet it is hard to see how this has unravelled the fabric of society there.

As Singapore opens up to the world, the influx of unwelcome influences will be increasingly impossible to dam. Singaporeans must learn to take greater responsibility for their own choices. The casino ban is just another dam that has outlived its usefulness, given the ease with which many can already lose their fortunes - and even their lives - doing things that are not banned.

The government can help Singaporeans grow up by removing the casino ban and investing in public awareness of the odds of the various casino games. Casino operators would then have to watch out for Singaporean card-sharps in future.

In the end, if someone wants to go bankrupt at a casino, wouldn't it be better for them to do so at a casino in Singapore, when the money can be recycled back into the economy via wages and taxes, rather than be 'lost' to some foreign entity?

Ultimately, the continuing integrity of Singapore's social fabric cannot be legislated. As our society progresses, defence will increasingly lie at the individual level. The pressure on the government will shift increasingly towards educating people on how to act responsibly, and helping them understand the consequences of the choices they make. Hopefully, enough Singaporeans will be able to choose wisely and keep the wonderful tapestry of Singapore society intact.

Jason Wee,
CFA London,
via Internet

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

OCT 9, 2004
Sentosa Cove plots fetch higher prices in latest tender
Property companies are paying as much as $60 psf more in the second tender for residential plots. Analysts see it as a sign of market rejuvenation

By Tracy Quek

THE three companies awarded residential land parcels at Sentosa Cove in the second tender are paying more for the plots.

Centrepoint Properties won the tender for the 117,612 sq ft condominium plot against other developers, including Ho Bee and the Sim Lian Group, with a bid of $86.9 million.

The land can be developed into a maximum of 138 homes, which works out to $411 psf per plot ratio.

Ho Bee paid $351 psf per plot ratio for the first condo plot sold under last year's maiden tender.

ACT Nobel Homes and Malaysian developer IJM Properties won the tenders for the two terrace plots.

ACT Nobel Homes bid $5.42 million, or $262 psf, for its 20,664.5 sq ft plot, while IJM Properties, in its first foray into the market here, offered $242 psf for its 25,497.7 sq ft parcel.

The highest price developers bid for the same sort of plots in the first tender was $238 psf.

Each piece of land for terrace homes can accommodate up to eight of them.

The managing director of property consultancy Cushman & Wakefield, Mr Donald Han, said the higher bids are just more signs of a rejuvenated property market.

'There's more confidence now and it's spilling over to developers.

'In today's market, if developers want choice sites, they must be prepared to fend off competitors by putting in high bids,' he said

The winning bids were announced just over a week of the tender closing, about the same period the winners of the first tender were told.

ACT Nobel Homes' managing director, Mr James Toh, said his company expects to sell its terrace houses for between $1.6 million and $2 million.

Property analyst Mr Han estimated that Centrepoint Properties's condo units will each go for more than $800,000.

The tenders for the 11 waterway-facing bungalow plots that were offered have not been awarded yet, said a Sentosa Cove spokesman.

With this second sale of plots, 9 per cent of the total inventory offered at the upmarket residential development on Sentosa island has been taken up.

Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 12 Oct 2004

Sentosa Cove may sell plots by private treaty, not tender

It hopes to attract big-name buyers who can help boost its global profile

By KALPANA RASHIWALA

SENTOSA Cove is planning to sell residential land parcels at the upscale housing resort directly through private treaty instead of putting them up for tender as is the practice now, sources told BT yesterday.

In a private treaty deal, an asking price is set by the seller and the final price is negotiated between buyer and seller with no time frame. In a tender, however, all potential buyers have to submit their offers by a stipulated deadline to the seller, and an award is usually made to the highest bidder.

Sources say the change in marketing tack being considered at Sentosa Cove is aimed at attracting interesting buyers, especially big names from overseas who will be a magnet for others to set up home on Sentosa. And these are not just international showbiz or sports personalities but stars in their respective industries or fields.

'Imagine if we managed to attract someone like Richard Branson to build a luxury bungalow on Sentosa Cove with his yacht parked in the marina. You can bet there'll be a lot of other people thinking of coming to Sentosa. And the spin-offs for the economy could be significant if they decide to invest in a business in Singapore,' as one industry veteran put it.

'But at the same time, if you're a Who's Who like Richard Branson or David Beckham, you wouldn't want to go through the hassle of submitting documents in a tender for a site,' he added.

Sources also told BT that while the private treaty method of selling land on Sentosa Cove is likely to be tried out initially for the smaller bungalow parcels, it could later be extended to bigger plots earmarked for development into terrace homes and condominiums, as well as en bloc sales of bungalow plots to a single developer.

'If you can get developers with successful experience in waterfront housing districts overseas, like Fisher Island in Florida or Newport Beach in California, to test the market on Sentosa Cove, they may be able to bring in some of the bigshots who live in these places as potential buyers for the homes they build on Sentosa Cove,' said a property market watcher.

Sentosa Cove has launched two sales of sites through tenders since late last year. While these have helped to establish land values there, the next step would be to draw more interesting property buyers and developers.

'The tender system - where everybody places bids without knowing exactly what the competition is and without any certainty of clinching a site - has been the conventional method of selling land, especially for government-linked organisations.

'You may end up selling the plot to the highest bidder but it may not necessarily attract the right profile of owners that Sentosa Cove is intending to target,' said Credo Real Estate executive director Karamjit Singh.

'High-profile buyers like David Beckham wouldn't want to go through the trouble of taking part in a tender. That's not the way to engage them. Instead, designated plots should be marketed specially to them. And if we manage to attract someone like David Beckham to come, that would instantly put Sentosa Cove on the world map.'

Selling by private treaty would help Sentosa Cove compete for high net-worth foreigners with prestigious housing districts elsewhere such as the Palm Islands Resort in Dubai and Sanctuary Cove on Australia's Gold Coast, say analysts.

Sentosa Cove recently eased rules to attract foreigners to buy landed properties, as well as to draw foreign developers to participate in developing the housing resort.

Darrell Metzger, chief executive of Sentosa Leisure Group, the parent of Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd, estimates that about 10 to 15 per cent of the 2,558 homes that will come up eventually on Sentosa Cove could be owned by foreigners.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

You see the promo stuff hor...make the Coral island thingy look so exclusive lidat...actually its surrounded by developments what....

Oct 21, 2004
Why Singapore should never have a casino

A CASINO will be a disaster for Singapore.

The idea was first mooted in 1964 to jump-start tourism in Singapore. At that time, the number of visitors was just 400,000. Today, without a casino, tourist arrivals are reaching eight million.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his then lieutenants, Dr Goh Keng Swee and Dr Toh Chin Chye, decided against having a casino. Instead, we took the straight and narrow road and prospered.

Our younger successors touting a casino as a quick fix to lagging tourist numbers should ask themselves this question: Are we a lesser society than Macau without a casino?

Secondly, the Ministry of Finance and Ministry for Trade and Industry should reveal the economic numbers. I am quite certain that the increase in gambling taxes from having a casino will be far less than, say, a 10 per cent increase in the budgets of the Prisons Department, Singapore Police Force, Commercial Affairs Department, Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, Central Narcotics Bureau and Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, which will be left to pick up the pieces of broken families.

It will be the height of irresponsibility on the part of the pro-casino gentry to throw away our hard-earned virtues of thrift, diligence and honesty just for a quick fix.

The Singapore Tourism Board will have to think harder on how to provide more value and attract the rising middle class of Asean, China and India to holiday in Singapore and place their children in our schools, polytechnics and universities.

Las Vegas is only a dot in the Arizona desert. The acid rain of large-scale gambling falls on a continental North America. The social ill effects are totally diluted. In the case of Singapore, we will need to give over the whole tiny island to the moguls of gambling. There is no free lunch.

Not many Singaporeans know that the Economic Development Board had to give up our adolescent dream of having a steel mill because of the physical pollution. Similarly, the Public Utilities Board did not establish a coal-fired power station because the coal dust would be inches thick on every inch of Singapore.

Large-scale gambling Las Vegas-style will be even more insidious and deadly for Singapore.

Finally, I am of the view that our aspiration to be a world financial centre, which requires absolute integrity and honesty of banks and their employees, is the polar opposite of big-time casino gambling. And casinos have to be big time to pay their way.

As a 67-year-old true-blue Singaporean, I appeal to our younger generation not to fall prey to the siren songs of Las Vegas. You will regret it.

Ngiam Tong Dow

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

bah. how can you compare 400k then to 8 million now? air traffic has probably increased by greater amounts.

thrift is not a virtue i'd recommend either.

Govt may call for casino proposals soon: Hng Kiang

25 Oct 04

Decision will come after review of proposals for integrated projects

By JOYCE KOH

(SINGAPORE) The government may soon ask private sector players to come forward with proposals on how to develop the island's first casino project - but they must be clear on the broad concept already decided.

'We are still studying the issue, but what we have decided so far is we are not going to dismiss the idea completely and we are prepared to go to the private sector and ask for a request for proposals,' Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang said yesterday at a dialogue session with residents of Bishan-Toa Payoh North.

'We can then study them and from there, determine the costs and benefits to Singapore in a more sensible manner. Based on that, we will make a decision. So the status is, we are not completely shutting the idea down,' he added.

But the blueprint of the matter has already been decided - any kind of casino built here will be based on an integrated resort model where the casino makes up 30-50 per cent of the revenue and not an exclusive high-end club or pure gambling station.

Mr Lim pointed to integrated entertainment complexes like Atlantis City in the Bahamas or the Bellagio in Las Vegas where besides casinos, there are also hotels and a whole variety of other activities from water-themed parks to theatres and art galleries.

'For the developer, they can make money from the hotel but cannot make much money from the other entertainment so they have casinos which bring in 30-50 per cent of the revenue and this more or less subsidises the entertainment. Because of that, the whole complex is profitable and viable,' said Mr Lim.

This is the kind of proposal the government is thinking of - where casinos are built simply to make the entire resort viable, he told the 300-strong audience.

He conclusively ruled out having very exclusive private casinos like Monte Carlo in Europe because they 'will not add much benefit to our economy'. Singapore is also not interested in standalone casinos such as those in Genting Highlands, Macau or Australia where gambling makes up 80-90 per cent of the revenue.

On the development of these casino plans, Mr Lim said the government has been talking to potential developers but these players have not reverted. 'When we are ready, we will call for a RFP (request for proposal). When we get the proposals and are able to study all these factors (costs and benefits), the government will make a decision.'

Meanwhile, Mr Lim, addressing the issue of higher oil prices, said year-end growth should hit previous forecast of 8-9 per cent despite rising oil prices.

But he warned that Singaporeans might have to adjust to higher transport and energy prices if crude oil prices stubbornly refuse to go down.

'If oil prices remain high then the world growth will slow and our exports will be lower, so we expect that kind of impact towards next year. If it is still high, it will also feed into electricity prices,' he said.

Oct 26, 2004
THE CASINO ISSUE
Social problems too high a price to pay

I AGREE with Mr Ngiam Tong Dow ('Why Singapore should never have a casino'; ST, Oct 21) that Singapore should not have a casino.

The main moral argument against having a casino is that easy access to it fosters addictive gambling, and addiction leads to socio-economic problems. These include the gambling away of money for household expenses and even 'rice money'. Neglect of family, abuse of spouse and children, and divorces may increase.

The presence of a casino creates opportunities for illegal and loanshark money-lending activities. It also creates opportunities for corrupt practices, money laundering, pilfering, embezzlement and bribery. Petty crimes, such as theft, burglary and cheating, may result too.

Other economic activities may suffer when disposable income is channelled to gambling instead of more productive purposes. It has been shown that immediately after a casino opens, the fallout is a loss of revenue for some sectors of the economy, although this is seen to be only temporary.

A casino may create a divide between the haves and the have-nots, when only the rich and 'upper class' can visit the casino while those perceived to be unable to afford gambling are barred.

It may create resentment against expatriates, PR foreign talents and visitors when 'affordability tests' are applied only to locals, especially if the casino and its other attractions are built with taxpayers' money and not private funds.

As it is, it is already a challenge for couples to bring up young children in Singapore because there has been an erosion of moral values.

In the early days of independent Singapore, long hair and 'yellow culture' were strongly disapproved of. Today, we see a profusion of KTV lounges, pubs and bars, and hordes of foreign women in the sex industry plying their trade openly. Are we selling ourselves short?

I remember many years ago getting a lesson on 'moneytheism' from a government stalwart, philosopher and thinker respected by his political colleagues. He lamented, even then, the people's surrendering to 'moneytheism', a word he coined. He is now history in Singapore's political scene but his lesson is worth remembering.

Let us think about the casino issue again. To compete with the other playgrounds for the rich and famous, the casino has to be equal in size and opulence. Are we ready?

Dr Toh Keng Kiat

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Oct 26, 2004
Social woes blamed on casinos already exist

MR NGIAM Tong Dow's views on the casino issue ('Why Singapore should never have a casino'; ST, Oct 21) are too idealistic. He implied that by removing evil, immorality would be vanquished.

All the social problems mentioned by Mr Ngiam would not disappear just because the casino is not in town. They already exist. For example, despite the strict drug laws, Singapore still has its fair share of drug addicts.

We should take a practical approach to the issue. Even without a casino, there are ample avenues for gambling.

We have the turf club, 4-D lottery, stock market and football bets. Then there are the casinos on Batam Island, only half an hour away, and at Genting Highlands, six hours away. For the high-rollers, there are the Australian casinos, the Macau casinos, and the cruise casinos.

The biggest advantage of having a casino in Singapore is that we collect the revenue that would otherwise go to other governments or underworld thugs.

The next advantage is that it keeps Singapore attractive as a tourist destination and brings in tourist revenue and creates jobs.

Singapore society has evolved to a higher level and the people should be allowed to act independently. Let us learn from our mistakes the hard way.

Cheong Wing Lee

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Oct 26, 2004
Australian casinos rely on local patronage

THE impression I get from media reports is that the casino planners are trying to create an instant Monte Carlo, probably to be located in Sentosa. It's part of their grand picture of a playground of hotels, waterfront villas and marinas tailored to attract rich, mainly foreign, jet-setters.

In other words, the casino will not be an upgrade for the legions of heartlanders who bet daily on the Singapore Sweep, Toto, 4-D, horse racing and football - and contribute to making gambling a multi-billion-dollar industry. Perish the thought!

Yet a recent study showed that Australian casinos rely on local patronage - mums and dads on weekend binges. Casinos in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Macau and Genting - which are shown to rely on their local mass market - are now also having to add non-gambling facilities to ensure profitability.

I wonder then how the planners could be so sure their narrow casino model would bring in tourist dollars to the extent that it will impact on the economy. It seems the pro-casino lobby is talking up this hope so as to nullify the well-known adverse social effects. The commercial danger is to fall between two stools: You can't have the glitz, glamour and profit without its unsavoury flipside of fraud, loansharking, pimping and, now, money-laundering. In short, you can't 'sanitise' the casino.

Singapore doesn't need a casino, period. We are not a basket-case banana republic. On the contrary, we are a First World nation whose national reserves are the envy of the world.

Notwithstanding a few percentage points' increase in our GDP, the greater social danger lies in sending the wrong signals to our impressionable young that an ostentatious lifestyle and flaunting of wealth are now not only fashionable but also encouraged.

It has taken four decades to arrive at where we are today as a nation. If we start to compromise our social principles and values, a decline in our society will surely take less time.

Ong Chin Bee

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Ho Bee sole bidder for Coral isle

27 Oct 04

Market estimates $200-220 psf bid for bungalow plot

By KALPANA RASHIWALA

THE latest tender on Sentosa Cove closed yesterday with Ho Bee understood to have emerged as the sole bidder for the en bloc sale of an island plot that can be subdivided into 24 bungalow lots.


Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd did not make any announcement on the outcome of the tender for Coral Island, but market watchers estimated Ho Bee's bid could have been $200-220 per square foot of land area.

This factors in a bulk or en bloc discount of 15 to 20 per cent using a base price of $260 psf.

This was the lower end of the range of prices at which Sentosa Cove has previously awarded 99-year leasehold waterway-facing bungalow plots that were sold individually.

The earlier plots are believed to have been sold primarily to end users.

Analysts pointed out that in formulating its bid, Ho Bee would also have considered the risks involved in developing a high-end product, plus its profit margin.

A bid of $200-220 psf works out to $36.9 million to $40.6 million for the 184,634 sq ft total land area. Assuming Ho Bee develops the maximum 24 bungalows, its average land cost per bungalow would work out to about $1.6 million.

Add to this construction costs of about $1 million to $1.2 million per unit, the breakeven cost could be about $2.6 million to $2.8 million for a bungalow.

A veteran property consultant estimated a selling price of about $3.25 million to $4 million for a new 99-year bungalow on Sentosa Cove with about 4,500-5,000 sq ft built-up area.

All the bungalows on Coral Island will face the waterway and can have their own private berths for yachts.

Although Sentosa Cove has held a few land tenders for condo, terrace and bungalow parcels, this is the first time Sentosa Cove is offering an entire island for sale.

Coral Island comprises 24 subdivided bungalow lots, although its successful developer may propose a new parcellation scheme - but subject to a maximum of 24 bungalows.

For instance, if there's demand from end-buyers for bungalows set on bigger plots of land to allow more outdoor garden area, the developer could build fewer bungalows.

Market watchers are waiting to see whether Sentosa Cove will award Coral Island to Ho Bee, which is developing a 200-unit condo and eight terrace homes on two parcels that it clinched in a maiden tender at Sentosa Cove which closed last December.

Sentosa Cove expects to make an award within the next two weeks for yesterday's Coral Island tender as well as for 11 bungalow sites in an earlier tender that closed about a month ago, said a spokesman for Sentosa Cove.

Last month's tender also included two terrace plots and a condo site, which have since been awarded.

Sentosa Cove, which will eventually have 2,558 homes, is being pitched as an upscale housing district that will rank internationally alongside Sanctuary Cove on Australia's Gold Coast and Palm Islands Resort in Dubai as prestigious housing districts for high net-worth foreigners.

In August, Sentosa Cove eased rules to attract foreigners to buy landed properties, as well as to draw foreign developers to participate in developing the housing resort.

North Cove looks beautiful!!:)

Raffie! you should buy a apartment at Sentosa Cove:)

I wish, if I could afford it, and I'll also wanna buy a unit in the new Sail condos at the new downtown.... (dreaming) :D :)

my sights are set on the sail... what's so nice about the cove?

erm...maybe for those that want a retreat from the city yet be close to it and own a yacht?

but if I could I'll go for the sail first...i'll shell out extra for the cove and also properties overseas....

ugh rich guy.

Nov 1, 2004
Let's learn from sorry example of Melbourne

I AM a Melbournian working in Singapore.

Like all Melbournians, when the idea of a casino was brought up, many of us thought it was a great idea as it would generate income and create more jobs for the state of Victoria.

Many felt we were losing out to New South Wales and Queensland because they had casinos while we did not.

Thus, the opening of the largest casino in the southern hemisphere was set to help elevate Melbourne's profile and generate revenue for the state, reducing state taxes.

However, the reality soon proved otherwise. After the casino opened, there was a rise in the number of broken families and middle-income earners who lost their life savings to their gambling addiction.

Things got to a point where more gambling helplines had to be set up to counsel victims and TV ads were aired to warn against gambling. The state government responded to the alarming effects by reducing the number of slot machines across the state.

These days, overseas Asians and retired Australians make up the bulk of casino patrons. Gambling tables are only about 30 per cent full. A good number of office workers in the central business district use the casino carpark to take advantage of its cheap parking rates.

Most Victorians now stay away from these machines, as they are reminded of the many horror stories of those whose lives have been devastated by debt and gambling addiction.

Melbourne and Victoria had to learn the hard way. I hope Singaporeans will take a leaf out of our book and not have to travel the same route we did.

Lawton Ho

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Nov 1, 2004
Problem or not, don't condone gambling

MR CHEONG Wing Lee is right to point out that gambling will always be a problem, casinos or not ('Social woes blamed on casinos already exist'; ST, Oct 26).

However, he fails to see the real point. To believe gambling is not the root of the problem does not mean we should condone it.

These are surely two separate issues.

As long as establishing a casino in Singapore aggravates the problem, there is sufficient reason to question the wisdom of such a move.

Of course, cost-benefit analysis applies here as well. Mr Cheong rightly points out that revenue is a big attraction, but his dubious assumption that a casino will make little difference because of existing gambling facilities prevents him exploring any potential losses to accrue from the casino.

Moral ambivalence in this case is perhaps immorality. A nanny state we may be, but it is ironic for Mr Cheong to say we should 'learn from our mistakes the hard way' after he derided Mr Ngiam Tong Dow as 'too idealistic'.

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche pointed out that 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger'.

How about what does kill you?

Albert Pek Yi Peng

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Nov 1, 2004
Make sure most jobs go to Singaporeans

I WOULD like to highlight something in the event that Singapore decides to build a casino here, regardless of the pros and cons.

I believe of the many reasons that will be given to justify a casino, one of them is mainly to jumpstart the economy here.

I hope in the thousands of jobs that will be created when the casino opens, priority is given to Singaporeans.

In fact, there should be a law that makes it man- datory for 90 per cent of staff in the casino to be Singaporeans.

Then we can say the casino also benefits citizens here by creating jobs.

Chua Hock Thiam

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Nov 2, 2004
Punters in casinos lose '$50 a visit'
Casino giant thinks problem gambling is not a big issue
By Glenys Sim

A TYPICAL customer at a casino run by the world's largest gaming company, Harrah's Entertainment, visits five to six times a year.

And he loses on average US$30 - or about $50 - a visit, said a senior company official eager to dispel the notion that a casino, if built here, will lead to the financial ruin of its customers and their families.

Senior vice-president of business development Richard Mirman said the issue of 'problem gambling' can be addressed, and that for most, going to the casino is much like going to the movies.

'If you go through bankruptcy filings, you'll find they're rarely filed by a casino company. The default rate on debt in our casinos is also minuscule,' he said.

In fact, to reach the highest level of the company's loyalty card programme, he added, customers have to spend US$1,000 in a year and 'a majority of the members don't have this card'.

He was responding to concerns, which include a higher incidence of problem gambling and bankruptcies, expressed by casino opponents.

Mr Mirman is in town as part of the United States-Asean Business Council delegation, here for three days to discuss business trends, opportunities and challenges with government officials.

In an interview with The Straits Times, he said that if his company is picked to run a casino here, it would look for a local partner to invest in the project - most likely, a property developer.

He added that he is in talks with several but would not say which ones.

Harrah's owns 28 gaming properties in the US, including Rio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas and Showboat casino in Atlantic City, and is in the midst of acquiring competitor and gaming giant Caesars Entertainment.

When that deal is done, it would have US$8.8 billion in annual revenue.

It is one of many gaming companies which have indicated interest in running a casino here. Others include Las Vegas Sands, which opened Sands casino in Macau in May.

Independent gaming analyst Jonathan Galaviz, who is accompanying Mr Mirman, warned that having entry prohibitions and high gaming taxes would lead to decreased investments by casino operators.

Mr Mirman, too, said he would 'discourage the restriction of access', and claimed there are a lot of other ways to tackle the problems that might arise from gambling.

Harrah's, he said, invests in research to understand the issues of problem gambling, as well as outreach and education programmes.

Both men met Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday and noted with interest Singapore's commitment in 'keeping an open mind' about whether to have a casino.

The Ministry of Trade and Industry said in a statement that it is consulting widely to get views and feedback.

'No decision has been made yet. A decision will only be made after carefully evaluating the various economic, social and security issues,' it said.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Business Times - 04 Nov 2004

Las Vegas casino hosts bash for S'pore high rollers

MGM-Mirage aims to build closer ties with its regulars

By DANIEL BUENAS

(SINGAPORE) Some of Singapore's casino 'high rollers' - individuals with credit lines of US$250,000 or more - and guests, totalling around 250 people in all, will attend a private party tonight at the Regent Hotel, hosted by a big Las Vegas gaming operator as part of its marketing efforts in the region.

Terrence Lanni, chairman and chief executive of MGM-Mirage - which owns some of Las Vegas' largest and plushiest casinos, including MGM Grand and the Bellagio - told BT that Singapore has at least 150 'high rollers' who are regular patrons.

'Singapore is a very important market for us,' said Mr Lanni. 'It's not as large as the Taiwanese market or the Hong Kong market, but it's a very significant market.'

He said he cannot 'talk specifically' about his company's clients but they are 'people of significance in varying levels of life'.

Mr Lanni said 'high rollers' - also known as 'whales' in the industry - usually stay in Las Vegas for four to five days at a time, but not all visit the US solely to go to Las Vegas, and and not all are drawn purely by gambling.

'Our retail and food outlets in Las Vegas are some of the best in the world, and many high rollers often come to enjoy what we have to offer.'

Mr Lanni said that as part of his work for various gaming entities, he has visited Singapore - and its regional neighbours - every year since 1977.

'That was to build our international marketing organisation, to meet and greet people that we've known over the years for purposes of inviting them to the United States, and more specifically, Las Vegas, for the Western and Chinese New Year,' he said.

According to Mr Lanni, his itinerary for such trips usually includes Taiwan, Hong Kong, China, Malaysia and Indonesia, and he sometimes hosts events in these places as well.

'It's to retain and build our relationships with our clients in the region,' he said.

Several other Las Vegas casino operators are in town as part of the United States-Asean Business Council delegation to discuss business trends, opportunities and challenges with government officials.

They include Harrah's Entertainment senior vice-president of business development Richard Mirman and Caesars Entertainment senior vice-president for international operations Mike Stirling.

Las Vegas-based independent gaming analyst Jonathan Galaviz, who is accompanying Mr Mirman, said it's 'not uncommon' for senior management of a gaming company to visit and host activities for high rollers overseas, but said it is unusual for a chief executive or chairman to do so.

'Obviously, the developments in Singapore and the opportunity for casino gaming legalisation here is prompting some companies to be more active towards various stakeholders in the country,' Mr Galaviz said.

'This kind of activity is consistent with a public relations strategy to ensure that they perhaps stay on the minds of some of the wealthier and more influential Singaporeans who also happen to be their clients within the high roller category.'

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

what's the dinner for?!

I think this whole casino saga needs a thread to its own as it also delves into deeper issues. I'll split them later.

Nov 5, 2004
Foreigners keen to buy in Sentosa Cove

Half of bungalow plot bids made by non-Singaporeans, and 3 out of 7 sales
ABOUT half of the bids for 11 bungalow plots in Sentosa Cove were made by Americans, mainland Chinese, Hong Kongers and New Zealanders, indicating that efforts to persuade foreigners to take a stake in the development have worked out.

Yesterday, they were awarded three of the plots, said developer Sentosa Cove, which did not reveal the successful bids or the size of the three sites.

Another four sites were sold to Singaporeans. The remaining four sites will be put up in the next tender or sold via private treaty.

The tender for the sale of the bungalow sites, which range in size from 516.53 sq m to 668.33 sq m, closed on Sept 28.

Yesterday, Sentosa Leisure Group chief executive Darrell Metzger said the successful bids and the number of bids received for each bungalow plot will not be revealed from now on.

'Initially, we were tendering and, because we revealed the bids, benchmarking prices,' he explained.

Sentosa Cove's decision prompted a property analyst to speculate that some of the bids made so far were lower than was hoped.

'I'd prefer it if there was more transparency, so people get an idea of how much to bid,' he said.

In the maiden tender for the development late last year, there were 118 bids for 18 bungalow plots, and those facing the canal were sold at between $260 psf and $400 psf. Sentosa Cove said it held back seven of the plots because the bids did not meet its expectations, and retendered them early this year. Six of the seven plots were subsequently sold, and the remaining unsold site was offered in the second sale of sites.

Now, to make it easier for foreigners to buy property in Sentosa Cove, the Singapore Land Authority will give them approval within two working days. Before Aug 18, it took seven days.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Boutique developer is big winner

5 Nov 04

Wah Khiaw bags 3 of 7 bungalow plots in Sentosa Cove's 2nd land sale: sources

By KALPANA RASHIWALA

BOUTIQUE developer Wah Khiaw has bagged three of the seven bungalow plots which Sentosa Cove has awarded in its second land sale, sources told BT.

Market watchers said the latest tender for bungalow sites attracted lower prices as well as fewer bids than last year's maiden tender, partly because the latest sites have less attractive facing. 'In the first tender, bidders were taking a stab in the dark. Now, they have some benchmark for pegging their bids,' said a property analyst.

Sentosa Cove did not release the prices at which it awarded seven of the 11 waterway-facing bungalow parcels offered at a tender that closed in September.

It did not award the remaining four plots, because no bids were received or the bids were deemed too low.

While Sentosa Cove did not reveal the identities of those who bagged the seven sites, it did say that three of the bungalow plots went to overseas bidders. 'Almost 50 per cent of the offers received for the 11 waterway-facing bungalow plots were from American, Chinese, Hong Kong and New Zealand purchasers,' it added.

Sentosa Cove relaxed rules for foreigners as well as foreign developers to bid for land parcels in the second sale.



Market watchers say they do not expect any of the bungalow sites to have been awarded below $260 per square foot (psf), as this was the lowest price at which Sentosa Cove awarded bungalow parcels in its maiden land sale. The highest price fetched for the latest tender was about $370-plus psf, BT understands.

On the whole, top bids for the 11 waterway-facing bungalow plots were lower than those received for the maiden sale of sites launched last year, say market watchers. In that exercise, the waterway-facing bungalow lots were sold to top bidders at prices ranging from $260 psf to $400 psf, while sea-facing plots fetched higher prices of between $302 psf and $456 psf.

As reported earlier, the second sale exercise included a condo plot, which was awarded to Centrepoint Properties, and two terrace parcels, which went to ACT Nobel Homes and Malaysia's IJM Properties - all at prices higher than condo and terrace plots in last year's tender.

On average, the second sale - for a total of 14 sites - attracted just over two bids per land parcel. Chesterton International director Nicholas Mak said it appears bungalow plots for the latest tender have attracted much fewer bids than the initial round. Like many other property analysts and industry observers, he was also disappointed with the lack of transparency in the tender results, with none of the bids being made public.

For Wah Khiaw, it must be sweet victory now. In the maiden tender, it is said to have bid unsuccessfully for all 18 bungalow plots on offer as well as two parcels for development into terrace houses.

Sentosa Cove has yet to make an award for another tender that closed last week for the en bloc sale of Coral Island, which can be developed into as many as 24 bungalows. BT reported earlier that Ho Bee was the sole bidder for the 184,634 sq ft plot, offering a price of about $200-220 psf.

http://sg.yimg.com/i/sg/providers/afp.gif

November 7
Watch out Macau: Las Vegas giants eye Singapore casino project

Watch out, Macau. International gambling companies searching for new Asian markets are waiting for Singapore to give the go-ahead for a proposed Las Vegas-style casino resort aimed at boosting tourism in the wealthy city-state.

Singapore is expected to issue a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) soon to potential developers, and top executives of the US casino industry have been visiting the Southeast Asian country to check out business opportunities.

The proposals would form the basis for further studies on the project, which has become a delicate matter in Singapore following an outcry from religious groups and individuals fearing the social impact of large-scale gambling.

Top executives from casino giants Caesars Entertainment and Harrah's Entertainment were part of a high-powered US business delegation that called on Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and other officials here last week.

Elizabeth Hernandez, regional director for industry and affairs of the US-ASEAN Business Council, told AFP the proposed casino resort was part of the delegation's discussions with Singapore ministers.

"Basically our companies would like to be able to participate," Hernandez said, adding that it was "made clear to us" that the RFP would be issued in the next few months.

But she said "the jury is still out" on whether the casino project will eventually take off.

An outpouring of dissent among ordinary Singaporeans is making the government think hard about the project, which critics say could spawn gambling addicts and ruin poor families.

Even members of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) have differed over the idea of a casino, although a horse racing club, lotteries and legal sports betting operations are allowed -- and hugely popular.

Singaporean casual gamblers and high-rollers have to travel to nearby countries such as Malaysia, the Philippines and Cambodia, or go all the way to Macau, Australia, Las Vegas or Europe to satisfy their casino itch.

Cruise ships also offer gambling on board once they leave Singapore waters.

A spokesman for Singapore's ministry of trade and industry told AFP "the government is currently studying the development of a distinctive world-class integrated resort which could include a casino component."

"We are consulting widely to get views and feedback. We are also looking into a possible request for proposal. No decision has been made yet," the spokesman said. "A decision will only be made after carefully evaluating the various economic, social and security issues."

In a recent community dialogue, Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang took pains to explain the government's position, saying the casino would only generate 30-40 percent of revenues from an integrated leisure complex.

The government will try to minimize any social harm to Singaporeans if the casino is built, the Straits Times newspaper quoted him as saying.

Prime Minister Lee, in his first policy address after being sworn in last August, called for a national debate on the casino issue and promised that "we will not make it easy for people to go broke and ruin their families."

"We will find reasonable restrictions, draw a line, call for proposals, test the market," he said.

Jonathan Galaviz, a Las Vegas-based casino industry analyst who was in Singapore recently, said a globally-competitive casino resort would require at least one billion US dollars in investment and take two years to build from scratch.

He cautioned against the proposal to limit access by poorer Singaporeans to the casino.

"You could have a one billion dollar casino investment but if there is a substantial restriction on local participation, you will not have the necessary baseline support to make the casino viable," he told AFP.

With an affluent population of four million people and some seven million tourists per year, Singapore can support a major casino complex, said Galaviz, who noted that metropolitan Las Vegas has an even smaller population.

Singapore boasts a per capita income of more than 22,700 US dollars. The tourism industry is expected to generate five billion dollars in receipts this year.

Galaviz, a partner at equity research and professional services firm Galaviz Ong and Co., said Singapore should decide soon whether it wants a casino, warning that Thailand, another Southeast Asian country heavily dependent on tourism, might embark on a similar project.

Singapore is not in a dire financial position and doesn't need casino gaming just for financial revenue purposes, he said.

"For Singapore, the strategic objective is to protect and enhance its tourism industry," Galaviz said.

Copyright © 2004AFP. All rights reserved.

haha US22,700 is nothing to 'boast' about.

haha US22,700 is nothing to 'boast' about.

At least we are not US2700 wat.........:lol:

yarlar but its still not something to boast about mar... boast to who???

yarlar but its still not something to boast about mar... boast to who???

To the investors who are keen to invest a casino in Singapore.......:yes:

November 08, 2004

Time to put cards on table

By Conrad Raj

WHEN the Government said that it was now open to considering allowing a casino here, after long opposing this, it stirred a lot of talk.

In the wake of all this, last month Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang said at an event for residents of Bishan-Toa Payoh North: "We are still studying the issue, but what we have decided so far is we are not going to dismiss the idea completely and we are prepared to go to the private sector and ask for a request for proposals.

"We can then study them and from there, determine the costs and benefits to Singapore in a more sensible manner. Based on that, we will make a decision. So the status is, we are not completely shutting the idea down."

On the other hand, the Government appears to have decided that any casino allowed here should not be a "standalone proposition" and would be more likely to follow those in Las Vegas, where they form part of an integrated resort and the revenue from gambling makes up just 30-50 per cent of the gross.

For instance, complexes such as the Bellagio in Las Vegas have, besides casinos, hotels and a whole variety of other activities from water-themed parks to theatres and art galleries.

Allowing the inclusion of a casino in such a resort would make it more appealing for investors to build major attractions here.

This provides me with a clearer idea of where the Government is leaning.

Yet, I'm a little surprised that we have reached only this position since the discussion first began.

I'm not saying that, in matters like this, we should come to a hasty decision. There are serious issues to be considered, such as how to deal with gambling addiction, money-laundering and other social ills related to gambling.

But the pros and cons of legalising gambling are age-old.

From the many legal games of chance we have, most operated by government entities, it's clear that the Government has no objection to gambling per se. And that the public, particularly the hundreds of thousands who take a flutter every so often, whether at the races, Toto or Big Sweep draws, or numerous lucky draws, doesn't find it so overwhelmingly evil that it makes its objection felt at that other gripping event - the polls.

Promoters of casinos also point out that crime is not necessarily a bigger problem in cities with legalised gambling halls than in cities without these.

According to Mr Richard Mirman, the senior vice-president of business development at Harrah's Entertainment, the world's biggest gaming company which runs casinos across the US, the incidence of crime is no higher in the cities where Harrah's operates. "In fact crime is on the slide in Las Vegas," he told Streats recently.

He also disclosed that problem gamblers constitute less than 1 per cent of his customers.

But given that he and other casino operators have vested interests in pushing for the issue of more casino licences, such claims should be checked and checked thoroughly.

However, I'm inclined to believe that our Government is not one to suddenly announce something such as a rethink on casinos without having done some homework.

And so I hope that the period of study won't be too long. In fact, the request for proposals that Mr Lim mentioned should be initiated promptly.

While Singapore studies the issue, money from here continues to flow to the gambling halls of Genting, Macau, Batam, Melbourne, Perth and the many cruise ships operating from our splendid cruise centre.

Many of the world's biggest gaming operators, including Steve Wynn of Bellagio, Harrah's, MGM and Stanley Ho of Macau, have gone public on their interest in a casino complex here.

They are ready to invest millions, if not billions, on a casino resort here because they know it's one of the safest places on Earth.

But the queue that has formed since the Government announced its plan to revisit the casino idea will not wait forever. There is competition for their ideas and investment dollars. Many other places in the region are also thinking of opening up new casinos or expanding existing operations. These include Macau, Thailand, Cambodia, the Philippines, South Korea and Sri Lanka.

Even Muslim Dubai and dictatorial Myanmar have drawn up plans for such.

Time is not on our side here.

Copyright © Singapore Press Holdings, 2004. All rights reserved.

since when does GDP have anything to do with setting up a casino? Malaysia has had a casino for years already!

anyway I read somewhere that the gross amount Singaporeans put on gambling is in the billions annually :eek:

Business Times - 10 Nov 2004

Singapore tourism advisory group backs plan for casino

SINGAPORE - Singapore's plan to build a controversial casino has received backing from a panel advising the city-state's tourism board.

Singapore's International Advisory Council for Tourism said in a statement that it 'unanimously supported the development of an integrated resort,' which includes a casino.

In July, officials revealed plans to build a 700 million Singapore dollar theme park with a casino on Singapore's resort island of Sentosa.

The casino proposal has attracted interest from some of Las Vegas' biggest casino operators, including MGM Mirage Inc and Harrah's Entertainment Inc.

Macau's casino king Stanley Ho is also reportedly interested in the Singapore plan.

Asia's multibillion dollar gaming industry is dominated by casinos in Macau, South Korea, Malaysia, Cambodia and the Philippines.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

November 16
Tuesday

S'pore tourism gets $2b devt fund, govt to meet potential casino operators

SINGAPORE: Singapore will be pumping $2b into a tourism development fund.
The fund will be used to invest in world class infrastructure and tourism products over the next 10 years.

The Government also says it will start talks with potential investors on an integrated resort with gaming facilities over the next few weeks.

Singapore stands to gain S$1.3b in duties a year if gaming is legalised - that's S$3.5m a day.

Public debate on whether Singapore should have a casino has been going on for months now.

So far, the majority of Singaporeans say they have no reservations about gaming.

Only a segment of the population opposes it on moral principles.

But the Government says the debate shouldn't be about trying to balance money and values.

Rather, it should be about Singaporeans being matured enough to do what they believe to be right.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry, told parliament: "Yes, you can have views about certain things or activities you don't wish to participate in. But, should these views be imposed on all other segments of our society, in a blanket society and thereby deprive people of exercising free choice in a matured way? My own sense of it is that Singapore is now a more matured society and generally the vast majority of Singaporeans can be trusted to make up their own minds, exercise their choices and act responsibly."

But Dr Vivian warned that gambling is merely a form of entertainment and is not a money-making venture as some would believe.

He said: "If you go to a casino, only a casino owner and the government who taxes the casino owner are sure to make money. Everybody else in the long run loses money. So if you choose to gamble, I want you to do so knowing full well that yes, you are actually in effect spending money to entertain yourself. You're not making a living out of it."

So far, up to 12 casino operators have expressed interest in doing business here.

Among their favourite locations are Sentosa island and Marina South. But the Government expects the number of investors will drop as few will be able to meet its guidelines and limitations.

The Government will view the concept plans of potential investors over the next few weeks, before asking for proposals.

But if the proposals can't achieve sufficient economic benefits, the Government says, it is still quite happy to walk away. - CNA

Copyright © 2004MediaCorp News. All rights reserved.

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 16 November 2004 1745 hrs

Singapore a matured society and ready for a casino: Dr Vivian
By Derek Cher, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE : Singapore is a matured society and is ready to accept having a casino here, says Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry Vivian Balakrishnan.

He also revealed that a majority of Singaporeans do not have problems with having a casino here.

Singapore currently collects $1.3 billion in gaming duties a year - that's $3.5 million a day.

But the government says the debate should not be on trying to balance money and values. Rather, it should focus on whether Singapore is a matured society.

Dr Vivian said: "Personally, I think Singaporeans are ready and will have to be ready in the future. If not now, then later. But to me, the direction in which our society is progressing is irreversible."

He said many Singaporeans did not object to having a casino here. Only a small minority oppose it on moral grounds.

But Dr Vivian warns that gambling is not a means to earn money or make a living. Instead, it should be viewed as a form of entertainment.

"If you go to a casino, only a casino owner and the government who taxes the casino owner is sure to make money. Everybody else in the long run loses money," he said.

The government will begin talks with potential investors over the next few weeks.

It will first view their concept plans before requesting for proposals.

But the government says the proposals must achieve sufficient economic benefits. Otherwise, it is still quite happy to walk away.

The government has also set aside $2 billion to develop tourism infrastructure and products over the next 10 years. - CNA

Copyright © 2004 MCN International Pte Ltd

:D:D:D hope the casino will be housed in some dramatic building.

I am pretty sure that could happen, this isnt about mediocrity :yes:

Nov 17, 2004
Investors to be asked to submit resort plans
Pragmatism to guide decision on casino; it must meet social aims
By Joyce Teo

SINGAPORE will take another step towards deciding whether to allow a casino here in the coming weeks when potential investors will be asked to submit their concepts for the integrated resort project.

And with it, Senior Minister for Trade and Industry Vivian Balakrishnan hopes to shift the debate on the casino issue to whether Singapore as a society is ready for it.

He acknowledged that the idea of having a casino, first mooted in March, was a 'polarising' issue, with opposing views expressed over the morality of gambling and its economic advantages as a tourist lure. But rather than set the debate as 'money versus values', he suggested that the real issue to confront is 'what type of society we are'.

'Can we trust the vast majority of Singaporeans to act responsibly? To exercise common sense and to make their own choices as to how they wish to spend their disposable income, how they wish to entertain themselves?'

The fact is that the Finance ministry collects about $1,300 million a year, or $3.5 million a day, in gaming duties. That's not counting those who gamble overseas, online or illegally, said Dr Balakrishnan.

There will be the small minority who become gambling addicts and need help 'but the vast majority can make up their own minds', he ventured. 'We can't have a situation where we protect you even from yourself. If the entire population needs to be protected from their own choices, then we will be in a very, very sorry state in the future.'

His remarks to reporters on the sidelines of an Istana function yesterday are the most explicit yet on the government's position regarding the controversial casino issue.

While the Government has no 'ideological opposition' to having a casino, some fundamentals will hold, he made clear. A more relaxed attitude towards gambling does not mean the ethic of hard work and discipline should be abandoned.

Gambling is not a way to make a living, said Dr Balakrishnan, noting that only casino operators and the Government which taxes them will make money.

Singapore will still remain a place to bring up families and be a trusted financial hub with no tolerance for loan-sharking and other illegal activities.

Over the past few months, Las Vegas casino operators have expressed interest in investing in a Singapore casino.

Much was made of the economic spin-offs in terms of tourist arrivals and job creation. In May, Dr Balakrishnan led a government delegation to study casino operations in Las Vegas.

Some six to 12 operators are interested in setting up shop here, but the site has yet to be fixed. Both Sentosa and Marina South have been raised as possible venues.

Dr Balakrishnan, who is also Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, poured cold water on the view that the casino option was a 'desperate' tactic to bring in tourist dollars, making it clear that what Singapore was searching for was a total integrated resort with the casino playing a 'very, very small' part.

In other words, it will not be 'a poky little gambling den' but an iconic tourist destination with fine dining, theme entertainment, international shows, high-end retail, convention facilities and the like as well.

And he would have no qualms walking away from the idea should the proposals tendered fail to meet economic or social objectives.

'If we decide that the proposals are not of sufficient economic benefit, we will not proceed. If we decide that the social safeguards or the social consequences are disproportionate and are basically beyond the capacity of our society to tolerate, then we will not proceed. So what I am asking for is a sensible, pragmatic approach, rather than an ideological approach,' he said.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Nov 17, 2004
Casino here is not a matter of money versus values

Gambling scene here

'THE Ministry of Finance collects about $1.3 billion a year in gaming duties. That's about $3.5 million a day. This doesn't even include people who are gambling overseas or indeed, over the Internet, or even those engaging in illegal forms of gaming.

Gambling is not a means of earning money or making a living. If you go to a casino, only the casino owner and the government who taxes the casino owner are sure to make money. Everybody else in the long run loses money. If you choose to gamble, I want you to do so knowing full well that yes, you are actually in fact spending money to entertain yourself, not making a living out of it.'

Setting issues in perspective

'I THINK you can't have a debate trying to balance money on one hand versus values on the other hand. The two cannot be put on the same weighing scale.

So I want to set this debate in perspective. I think the real question which we need to confront is what type of society we are or, to be more accurate, are we now a more mature society than say decades ago, meaning can we trust the vast majority of Singaporeans to act responsibly, to exercise common sense and to make their own choices as to how they wish to spend their disposable income, how they wish to entertain themselves?

My own sense of it is Singapore is now a much more mature society and, generally, the vast majority of Singaporeans can be trusted to make up their own minds, exercise their choices and act responsibly.

The fundamental question is, are we ready as a society to let people make choices of their own, take responsibility for their actions and face the consequences?

If we are indeed ready, then we can consider taking more risks in a sense, with new and innovative and radical plans. This issue of an integrated resort with a casino is just one such example.

But there are many more challenges and issues which we will have to face in the future, for which there will be no easy answer, no consensus answer. But we need the public, Singaporeans, to understand the new world and the new challenges that we will face.

What we do need is to remind everyone now that you have to live with the consequences of your choices. We can't have a situation where we protect you, even from yourself. If the entire population needs to be protected from their own choices, then we will be in a very, very sorry state in the future.'

Some things don't change

'EVEN if we were to have a more relaxed attitude to gambling, I don't want people to think that our ethic of hard work and discipline should be abandoned, thrown overboard. The second point I want to emphasise is that we have a reputation to maintain of being a good, wholesome place to bring up families and of being a trusted financial centre in South-east Asia and the world.

Again, whatever additional entertainment facilities we provide must not be allowed to erode our position as a trusted financial centre in the world.

Even if we were to move in this direction and allow a casino to be developed, we would not tolerate vice, loansharking and petty crime within our premises.

If you stop and think about it, the reason why so many international operators are keen to come to Singapore is precisely because of our good hygiene factor. They know that this is a safe, clean, proper, fair place in which to do business and in which to provide entertainment.'

The resort Singapore wants

'WE ARE not interested in a gambling hall, or a little pokey gambling den.

What we would consider would be a large scale iconic, integrated entertainment resort which would be a tourist icon, which would put us on the tourist road map; for people to say, yes I want to see it and I want to participate in what it offers. And what it offers, the gambling facility, must be a very, very small component of a much larger whole. What do I mean by a much larger whole? I would include things like fine dining, themed entertainment, international shows, high-end retail, convention facilities and the like.

I want to emphasise that, at this stage, I am quite happy to walk away if I find the proposals do not fulfil our objective.

I want to add, in case there are some people who think the move is a move of desperation, that it is not a move of desperation. Our tourism sector is doing very well this year. In fact, we have just decided to set aside up to $2 billion in a tourism development fund, which we will use over the next 10 years to invest in world class infrastructure and tourism products for Singapore.

So, it's not as if this integrated resort is the be all and end all of our tourism strategy. It is just one option.'

How a decision will be made

'IF OUR conclusion is that Singapore is not mature, then we cannot proceed with this proposal.

If we decide that the proposals are not of sufficient economic benefit, we will not proceed. If we decide that the social safeguards or consequences are disproportionate and are basically beyond the capacity of our society to tolerate, then we will not proceed.

So what I am asking for is a sensible, pragmatic approach, rather than an ideological approach. Don't be trapped by ideology, don't be trapped by old ways of doing things just because we have already done it that way... don't be stuck in that groove.

We now live in a time where we need to be prepared to explore all options, but to do so sensibly, to do it with our eyes open and to cross each bridge as we come to it...

To me, the direction in which our society is progressing is irreversible.'

The long road to a casino decision

March 12: The possibility of a casino here is first raised by Mr George Yeo in Parliament during the Budget debate. He reveals plans to link Sentosa with the Southern Islands to develop a world-class resort that could include a casino for the well-heeled.

April 19: Updating Parliament, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan says the Government will decide in about six to nine months whether to allow a casino here, after wide consultation and careful study of the social and economic implications.

May: Dr Balakrishnan leads a fact-finding visit to study casino operations in Las Vegas.

July: The National Council of Churches of Singapore comes out strongly against the idea of having a casino here. Pergas, the Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association, and the Catholic Church add their objections later.

Aug 22: In his National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong suggests studying if Singapore can have a casino and still contain the social ills.

Sept 25: The casino debate has the population split almost right down the middle, according to a survey published in The Straits Times - 53 per cent are in favour, while 47 per cent oppose it.

Oct 24: Mr Lim Hng Kiang says the Government may soon ask private sector players to come forward with proposals on how to develop the casino project.

Nov 10: A panel of 17 international experts advising the Singapore Tourism Board unanimously backs the plan for an integrated resort with a casino.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 17 November 2004 1704 hrs

Economic gains from casino may be exaggerated, say experts at forum
By Julia Ng, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE: Economist Winston Koh, an associate professor from the Singapore Management University, says a top destination casino-resort can add at least one percent to two percent to Singapore's GDP.

Singaporeans wager over $6 billion annually - gambling on 4-D, horse-racing, Toto, soccer, Slot machines and the Singapore Sweep.

$2 billion is also lost every year to overseas casinos - as over 1,000 Singaporeans flock to cruise ships, Genting, Macau, Australia and even Las Vegas and London.

Experts say if Singapore does decide to build its own casino-resort, it'll not only stem this 'leakage' to overseas casinos, but also rejuvenate the tourism industry and entertainment scene.

But one economist warns against exaggerating the economic benefits of the casino project.

Sanjay Mathur, executive director of UBS AG, says there is also a risk of 'cannibalisation' of existing services at the expense of the hotel industry.

Globally, stand-alone casinos in metropolitan areas suffer trade diversion - that is spending on casinos increases at the expense of spending on other entertainment activities.

A casino may also offer cheap hotel accommodation and resort facilities so as to attract gamers to its gambling activities, leading to lower overall room rates at other hotels.

Experts also say that casinos rely heavily on the local population to stay viable - with only some exceptions like the Atlantic City resort in the Bahamas.

One resort operator, Ronald Tan of 1 Worldhotels Limited, feels Singapore has the capability to build the world's first casino entry-screening system, by leveraging on its technological advances like biometric systems.

He also suggests that the government compels the casino operator to commit 1% of its revenue to a fund that could benefit social causes, so that Singaporeans could enjoy the economic spin-offs of a casino.

The social sector, however, says that should Singapore go ahead with its casino project, it'll need to quickly train social workers to cope with the social impact.

Currently, there're only about 1o to 15 counsellors trained in gambling addiction.

The experts were speaking at a forum on the Singapore casino proposal.

The forum was organised by the Institute of Policy Studies and attended by some 200 top brains. - CNA

Copyright © 2004 MCN International Pte Ltd

Maybe we should create a seperate thread for the casino news and move all the posts on casinos there. :yes:

Business Times - 17 Nov 2004

Gaming not needed to boost tourism: minister

Govt 'happy to walk away' from casino plans if proposals do not meet expectations

By VINCE CHONG

(SINGAPORE) The government is set to spend $2 billion over a period of 10 years to develop the tourism industry and does not 'need' gaming to boost the sector, Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry Vivian Balakrishnan said yesterday.

Singapore is 'quite happy to walk away' from plans for a casino if the economic benefits are insufficient or the country's social safeguards and reputation would be compromised, Dr Balakrishnan told reporters at an Istana function. Tourism, he said, is already doing well on its own.

He did not elaborate on the $2 billion tourism plan. But the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) said later it has obtained government support for a 'strategic roadmap' for the sector, with more details to be announced 'at an appropriate time'.

'Under the proposal, a $2 billion Tourism Development Fund will be set up to develop world-class infrastructure and tourism products,' STB deputy chairman and chief executive Lim Neo Chian said in a statement.

'This will ensure the sector remains competitive and continues to be a key contributor to the economy in the years to come.'

Visitor arrivals in September rose 18 per cent to 658,200 from a year ago and 10 per cent from 2002. And for the first nine months, Singapore posted an estimated $7.2 billion in tourism receipts - up 12 per cent from the same period in 2003 and on track to meet the 2004 target of $8.7 billion.

The authorities plan to meet six to 12 potential investors soon to discuss concepts for a world-class integrated resort that would include a casino, with proposals to be called within a few months, Dr Balakrishnan said at the Istana, where President SR Nathan was hosting a tea session for the Singapore Paralympic Contingent.

Dr Balakrishnan, who is also Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, said the project could cost 'hundreds of millions, billions of dollars'.

Sentosa and Marina South have been mentioned as possible locations.

He said that gaming is expected to be only a small part of a potential 'iconic, full-service' resort that will include fine dining and high-end shops.

'It's very clear that many Singaporeans do gamble and view gaming as a form of entertainment,' he said, pointing out that Singapore currently collects $1.3 billion in gaming duties a year, or $3.5 million a day.

'This does not include gaming overseas, on the Internet or illegal forms... (but) we're quite happy to walk away if proposals do not fulfil expectations.'

Calling for the national debate on Singapore's potential casino to continue, Dr Balakrishnan said it is vital that Singaporeans understand exactly what gaming is about.

'Gambling is not a means of earning money or making a living,' he said.

'If you go to a casino, only the casino owner and the government that taxes the casino owner are sure to make money. Everybody else in the long run loses money.

'So if you choose to gamble, I want you to do so knowing full well that yes, you are actually in effect spending money to entertain yourself.'

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

i hope the casino loooks something like this :D

http://www.base.tripod.com/downloads/wallpapers/naboo.jpg

and this :D

http://mobz.org/starwars/bin.boa/239.jpg

Can't see...

oops :( wait let me upload onto my own host

http://www.decipher.com/youngjedi/cardlists/battleofnaboo/dark/images/136nabootheedpalace.gif


http://imagehost.biz/ims/pictes/96249.jpg

if casino ppl decide to do another venetian please dont make a cheap copy make an expensive one with fine detailing

http://www.values.ch/Venice/sm4.jpg

http://www.trekearth.com/images/photos/5513/st_marks_square_s.jpg

Nov 23, 2004
First units of Sentosa condo launched

SINGAPORE -- THE first condominium in upmarket Sentosa Cove, called The Berth, is selling 100 or half its units at an average price of s$785 psf.

The sale begins on Wednesday, but only those with invitations can get a foot in.

Developer Ho Bee Group said on Tuesday that these invited buyers are its business associates and those who registered interest with the company or its marketing agents, CB Richard Ellis, DTZ Debenham Tie Leung and Knight Frank.

The Berth, which offers resort-style waterfront living, will have 43 apartments with two bedrooms, 100 with three and 29 with four.

The rest are 26 penthouses and two villas. Each villa is the size of two penthouses and comes with a pool.

The development will also have 25 marine berths which will cost each boat owner S$3,000 a year to use.

Ho Bee chairman Chua Thian Poh said the remaining 100 units will be launched at the start of next year at an average price of at least S$825 psf.

A property analyst indicated that there may be some resistance at prices beyond S$800 psf because flats at the neighbouring waterfront condo, Caribbean at Keppel Bay, were sold recently at an average price of s$760 psf.

Copyright © 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Perhaps should build something taller and make the marina bigger?

a tall building wont do for Sentosa - they want to create a resort atmosphere, an escape from the city :cool:

Sentosa's first condo goes on sale today

24 Nov 04

Ho Bee releases 100 units at Berth by the Cove at average price of $785 psf

By VINCE CHONG

(SINGAPORE) Sales of Sentosa's first condominium start today, with the initial release of 100 homes priced at an average of $785 per square foot (psf).

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-11-24/vcho24-231422.jpg
Foreign berth: The group expects foreigners to take up 30-40 per cent of the waterfront development

This is expected to rise to above $800 psf when the second phase of the 200-unit project, The Berth by the Cove, is released early next year, said Chua Thian Poh, chairman of developer Ho Bee Group.

He said at a media briefing at a showflat yesterday that the group expects foreigners to take up 30-40 per cent of the waterfront development, gauging from international feedback.

'For the preview, we have set it at a lower price for those who have registered interest,' Mr Chua said, adding that a casino on the island won't affect the condo's target market, partly because any such plan is understood to be part of a high-end resort.

'The second phase should be out at the beginning of next year,' he said. 'And maybe there won't be an official launch, but the average price should rise to above $800 psf.'

Between 10 and 20 potential buyers have already dropped off deposits, he told reporters on the sidelines of the briefing.

Ho Bee paid $110 million last year for the 174,000 sq ft site at Sentosa Cove, the first residential enclave on the tourist isle. Breakeven for the project, which is aimed at upper-end buyers, has been estimated at $640 psf.

Only 2,600 homes, comprising landed and condo units, are allowed at the 117-ha Sentosa Cove development. And according to Ho Bee executive director Ong Chong Hua, this 'scarcity' means The Berth will retain investment value.

Willy Shee, managing director of CB Richard Ellis, one of the marketing agents of the project, reckons The Berth could fetch an above-average rental yield of 4-4.5 per cent.

'The two-bedroom units could fetch $3,000-$4,000 per month, three-bedrooms could go for $4,000-$5,500 while the four-bedroom ones could be about $7,000,' he said.

Going forward, Mr Chua said Ho Bee could release its Mount Sinai project - which has potential for 110 mid-size apartments - next year, while continuing to look out for land in Singapore.

Ho Bee also develops homes in London and Shanghai.

Waterfront lifestyle at The Berth

25 Nov 04

Ho Bee Group expects a foreign take-up rate of 30-40% for its Sentosa condo project, pitched as a resort within a resort

TARGETED at the relatively well-heeled, Ho Bee Group's Sentosa project, The Berth by the Cove, is set to appeal to the international investor and homebuyer as the Singapore property market emerges from a slump.

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-11-25/vchunt25-214457.jpg

Yesterday, sales began for the 200-unit development, which is also the first condominium on Singapore's tourist island resort of Sentosa, with the initial release of 100 homes priced at an average of $785 per square foot.

This is expected to rise to above $800 psf during the second phase of release early next year, said Ho Bee chairman Chua Thian Poh in a recent media briefing, calling the project 'a resort within a resort'.

Ho Bee executive director Ong Chong Hua added that the project - touted as 'a mirror of not just an island hideaway but also the elite lifestyle you lead' - will appeal to foreign buyers and the 'rich and famous' who are familiar with the waterfront lifestyle.

The group is expecting a foreign take-up of 30-40 per cent for The Berth, judging by international feedback. The project, which has good-sized two, three and four-bedroom homes, plus penthouses, will also come complete with 25 boating berths for sailing enthusiasts.

Noting that the property market in Singapore seems to have bottomed out with slight improvements in the last two quarters, Mr Chua said: 'For the preview, we have set it at a lower price for those who have registered interest. The second phase should be out at the beginning of next year, and maybe there won't be an official launch but the average price should rise to above $800 psf.'

Investment potential is high, property veterans added, with CB Richard Ellis managing director Willy Shee estimating rental yields of over 4 per cent, higher than the current industry average of 3-3.5 per cent.

'The two-bedroom units could fetch $3,000-$4,000 per month, three-bedrooms could go for $4,000-$5,500 while the four-bedroom ones could be about $7,000,' he said.

DTZ Debenham Tie Leung managing director Ho Tian Lam added that there are signs that foreign investors are looking at the Singapore property market now that other regional cities have become pricier in the past year.

'These investors are putting their money in Singapore as they see it as the next place where property prices will rise,' he said.

Knight Frank managing director Tan Tiong Cheng added that the investment potential is further heightened with Sentosa Cove - the residential enclave on Sentosa - set to play host to a finite supply of just 2,600 landed homes and condo units.

Sentosa Cove offers a living experience without any precedent in Singapore, offering a blend of residences, commercial space and marina facilities all in one spot.

In fact, potential homebuyers interested in a unit at The Berth may call HSBC for a private viewing.

Signs of good demand are evident, said Mr Chua. The company had received cheques from some 10-20 potential buyers even before the project came on the market.

Ho Bee bought the 174,000 sq ft site for almost $110 million last year in Sentosa Cove.

The location is just a 10-minute drive away from the city, with The Berth set to provide shuttle services to the HarbourFront MRT station. The HarbourFront area will host VivoCity, Singapore's largest one-stop shopping and entertainment complex.

I remembered seeing a proposed model of the Sentosa Cove at its office in 1997/8.

There are 2 proposed condos at the mouth of the waterway into Buran Durat as shown in the picture. Dunno if the land parcels are sold already. Guess most probably not.

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/living/condo.jpg

dunno if its just me, but i doubt the sustainability of the recent property boom. How will Sentosa projects hold their own against mainland developments?! Tell you lah, they should let HDB set up a Sentosa estate so we will finally have the critical mass of consumers that will sustain the tourist attractions and petty businesses and thus generate investment potential in Sentosa so the rich and famous will flock to Sentosa Cove via the expressroads that cut through the poor and downtrodden denizens of Sentosa HDB estate. Then let the next PM come from Sentosa GRC so that it will become as desirable real estate property as AMK and Marine Parade are now.
\
I saw a drama mama Sentosa advert on tv just now, all 90s of it. Sunset in vermillion on sparkling beaches of crystal green waters! Hunks and Babes in golden tan hugging red tight swimsuits against their supple skin! Spa culture and resort living! All bullshit i tell you. Its all as disappointing as Ocean Park HK. I think Sentosa is just outdated. To sustain a tourist spot for a really long time the infrastructure must be renewed constantly i think. on a mega scale. like Tokyo disneySea. What am i talkign about. And then you must pay beach models to decorate the beaches. And the most articulate shopkeepers to run the tourist shops. And make arrangement with God for cloudless skies, sparkling water and 21 degree celsius breezes. Or we can just severe the causeway and float to Sydney.

Improve the pedestrian experience of Sentosa lah PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!! No more confusing roads, no more jungle treks thru shoddy jungle growth, no more need to pay $10 for each attraction i took half an hour to reach, no more I only get to see the marvellous Gateway bldg when i take the ferry, and if come by car i go to visitor centre - not at gateway. wtf.

hdb estates are far too ugly. i suggest wiping them out instead of building more. that's after i move out of my flat, of course.

The bad thing is that NEL was not built directly to Sentosa! It could have been a great experience to get out of a MRT station and be on the beach :) But having to change at HarbourFront is quite inconvenient, at least if you don't want to go shopping at VivoCity in the future. And the Sentosa Express will be pretty useless because it will have just four stations so you can't reach most of the island's attractions and still have to use the bus. If Sentosa were better connected to the city centre and other parts of Singapore it would be much more attractive to visitors. And the admission fee is really silly :bash:

Nicholasliha, your idea to pay beach models to decorate the beaches is great!!!

Does anyone have pics of the Sentosa Express construction sites?

The bad thing is that NEL was not built directly to Sentosa! It could have been a great experience to get out of a MRT station and be on the beach :) But having to change at HarbourFront is quite inconvenient, at least if you don't want to go shopping at VivoCity in the future. And the Sentosa Express will be pretty useless because it will have just four stations so you can't reach most of the island's attractions and still have to use the bus. If Sentosa were better connected to the city centre and other parts of Singapore it would be much more attractive to visitors. And the admission fee is really silly :bash:

Nicholasliha, your idea to pay beach models to decorate the beaches is great!!!

Does anyone have pics of the Sentosa Express construction sites?

Yeah accessibility would have improved but the island's appeal would have been lost. After all, the tunneling would severely damage the island's flora and fauna. And, the fact that you reach it via an MRT Station simply destroys the island's appeal even further, cause its no different from reaching a suburban mall via the MRT. And even if they built an MRT station there, you'd still have to transfer cause the island can't sustain more than one MRT station, and even if more were built it would destroy the environment further.

4 stations is sad cause you probably have to take a bus to most attractions but its better than the old non air conditioned one way and slow Monorail. The only thing we can hope for is for better bus services within the island and better attractions. Having a monorail bring you to all places is kinda bad in a way in that you feel like you're forever stuck in an efficient city. This isn't Disneyland, but rather a island resort so more stations popping up everywhere won't really improve its image as a tropical resort.

Anyways I rather they spent the money on better attractions like a new theme park rather than on more stations.

Yeah the entrance fee sucks but they did say that they will be removing it in the future when there are more attractions etc etc etc.

Nope no construction pics. Everyone is too busy to go there. Last thing I head they started construction for the monorail pylons on the bridge already.

I remembered seeing a proposed model of the Sentosa Cove at its office in 1997/8.

There are 2 proposed condos at the mouth of the waterway into Buran Durat as shown in the picture. Dunno if the land parcels are sold already. Guess most probably not.

http://www.sentosacove.com.sg/images/living/condo.jpg

where is Buran Durat?

anyway I think Sentosa is undergoing a serious revamp in tandem with Harbourfront development. New hotels are planned there. And they should make it easier to walk around Sentosa, agree. It seriously needs to be more affordable for the average Singaporean planning to spend a day there but not necessarily stay in a hotel.

Anyway the government recently announced they are setting up 2 billion to remake Sentosa right?

The Berth sells over 50 units in 2 days

27 Nov 04

Two $4m villas, each the size of 2 penthouses, taken by foreign buyers

By ANDREA TAN

THE Berth by the Cove - the first housing project on Sentosa - has attracted keen interest, selling over 50 units in two days.


The 50-plus units do not include yesterday's sales.

Potential and actual buyers weren't the only parties who had turned up to view the project.

Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan also visited the site earlier this week with officers from the Urban Redevelopment Authority. 'I visited all these projects with URA officers, to see for ourselves the developments that have taken place on these sale sites,' Mr Mah said in an e-mail response to BT's queries.

'Each of these projects has special characteristics - the Icon was the first major (residential) development in the city, the Sail was the first residential development on a white site fronting Marina Bay and The Berth, the first residential project on Sentosa.'

Mr Mah had earlier also visited The Sail@Marina Bay and Icon at Tanjong Pagar.

The Ministry of National Development tracks the property market and it is thus not surprising that Mr Mah was checking out the first residential project on Sentosa. The government land sales programme for the first half of 2005 is expected to be announced in a few weeks.

Previews at The Berth began on Wednesday. Ho Bee released 100 units at an average price of $785 per square foot.

'We've done over 50 units in just the first two days,' Ho Bee chairman Chua Thian Poh told BT yesterday. Mr Chua said the group may consider releasing another two blocks of 24 units for the weekend above $800 psf as they are better-facing units.

'We invited about 200 people to The Berth so we're very pleased with the conversion rate,' Mr Chua said. 'Some of our business associates even scolded us for not being the first few to be invited.'

BT understands that the only two sky villas have been sold to a Russian businessman and an Indonesian party. The sky villas, about the size of two typical penthouses, cost over $4 million each. There are 28 penthouses in the development. Out of the 14 which have been released, more than half have found buyers.

Mr Chua said that interest in the project has been 'very international'. 'We have a Swiss buyer who bought, Irish parties who are interested, Koreans, Indonesians and Thais.'

where is Buran Durat?

anyway I think Sentosa is undergoing a serious revamp in tandem with Harbourfront development. New hotels are planned there. And they should make it easier to walk around Sentosa, agree. It seriously needs to be more affordable for the average Singaporean planning to spend a day there but not necessarily stay in a hotel.

Anyway the government recently announced they are setting up 2 billion to remake Sentosa right?

Buran Darat was where Sentosa Cove is. Sorry for the unfamiliar name used here. Sentosa Cove is made up of part reclaimed and part Buran Darat island. You can see here. It's red.
http://www.ura.gov.sg/pr/graphics/pr96-22p.gif

I have been to the site before but that was in 1997/8. View was very good at the marina of Sentosa Cove. Had the office's digital camera then and took a very good panorama of the marina but can't find the picture now... what a pity... If you love the sea and have the money, yacht(s) and car(s), should get a property there. ;)

They had intended to launch the land sales then. But, has been on hold till recently. See this old news release by URA. http://www.ura.gov.sg/pr/text/pr96-22.html

I was quite amused when reading this thread... does not make sense building a HDB estate at Sentosa Cove. Singapore does not have a high-end waterfront resort living here. Carribean at Keppel Bay does not count cos it's still on the mainland.

Thanks for the explanation, so it was an existing island previously. Quite surprised this plan for waterfront living was conceived way back then!

anyway I dont really see anything wrong with a HDB on one of our smaller islands, it probably might happen in the future, like at Pulau Ubin perhaps?

Erm... Not exactly an existing island... but rather Sentosa Cove is reclaimed land + Buran Darat.

I said that having a HDB estate on Sentosa Cove does not make sense (or rather "cents") because the land is too expensive to subsidise. The cost of reclamation and building the infrastructure (i.e. roads, canals, electricity, water etc) is way too high to justify a HDB estate there.

BTW, the Sentosa Cove idea was started way back in the 1980s...

of course, I dont really think having a HDB estate on Sentosa will necessarily be feasible, but having a live-in population nearby does add some buzz to an area, of course now we'll have Sentosa Cove.

anyways it will be very unique if the first HDB estate gets built on an offshore island :cool:

Hmmm... then Sentosa Cove will lose its exclusivity if we have some HDB flats there...

HDB flats on offshore island? If the people do not find transport a problem... ;) Maybe, BMTC on Pulau Tekong counts as the first "HDB flat" on an offshore island?

LOL

Well regarding transport issues I guess in future we will have no choice if the population expands and there is demand for more housing, although of course not within the next 40 years perhaps :)

went to the preview showflat yesterday, and my, its impressive..

guests are treated to spectacular views and BLUE (yes, the water there is actually blue!) water... Other perks other than viewing the 3 bedroom show unit is a little ride on a boat around its waterways for those who are game, nice outdoor berth for eople to enjoy the breezy laidback afternoon, and FREEFLOW of champagne, red wine, white wine, coffee, tea, coke...

Fantastic dream house... :cheers:

How much is the Berth? Do you have the brochure? Can upload some pics for us to see?