World Cup: Singapore anti-gambling ad backfires

[JR8]

they really meant to drive the message home against gambling.

.... but I think we've touched upon the issue of Singapore and any remaining vestiges of a moral stance against gambling...

These gambling ads were funded by the taxpayer: Mebbe they should have been funded by Marina Bay Sands? ['But we wouldn't want to hit them would we?']

[CaptainBullus]

Dad should have bet on North Korea...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ld-3849292

[JR8]

Daddy daddy!!! Why you not put my live saving $5.65 on King Jong Ills?
Daddy Daddy!!

[the lynx]

they really meant to drive the message home against gambling.

.... but I think we've touched upon the issue of Singapore and any remaining vestiges of a moral stance against gambling...

These gambling ads were funded by the taxpayer: Mebbe they should have been funded by Marina Bay Sands? ['But we wouldn't want to hit them would we?']

OK I should rephrase. They want the Singaporeans and PRs NOT to gamble, hence the ad. The foreigners can gamble their asses off and bugger off bankrupt for all they care.

[JR8]

OK I should rephrase. They want the Singaporeans and PRs NOT to gamble, hence the ad. The foreigners can gamble their asses off and bugger off bankrupt for all they care.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure where the truth lies. SGns/PRs can gamble simply and legally here, on the lottery, or the horses (my M-I-L regularly asks me to pick numbers for her! ). Just witness the queue for tickets inside the governments own supermarkets (NTUC) on a big-draw day.

SGns/PRs can visit the casino at MBS, they just have to pay an entry fee. Now that could be considered a requirement negotiated by the paternal government for the sake of vulnerable citizens. It could also be a requirement initiated by MBS's Las Vegas owners, to keep the casino from becoming a destination for 'gawking uncles' who haven't 2 beans to their credit, are generally lowering the attempted high-class tone, but are enjoying mingling amongst wealth and getting the free F+B, and being air-con'd all day long. One could then be presented as the other, and arguably both parties come out looking good.

Ho hum... 'too compricate' for this early hour...

p.s. I wonder if the entry fee goes directly to MBS revenue, or whether it is a tax. ...
You might ask if the government would wish for income they raise from gambling, that comes via channels they all control, to be diverted to a channel like MBS that they do not control. I.e. whether they would allow competition over their own turf and income-stream. But that would be verging on gangland style protectionism and so of course cannot be ...

[Strong Eagle]

It could also be a requirement initiated by MBS's Las Vegas owners, to keep the casino from becoming a destination for 'gawking uncles' who haven't 2 beans to their credit, ...

On this point you are absolutely correct. I met a woman on the fast boat to Batam a few years back who was managing part of the startup at MBS. They were totally in favor of the fee.

Pointing to the myriad of people on the Batam fast boat, all heading over to the "gambling boat", she noted the number of them in flip flops, short shorts, tank tops, and the like, and said they just didn't want to attract these kind of gamblers. The $100 keeps them out.

[ecureilx]

]

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure where the truth lies. SGns/PRs can gamble simply and legally here, on the lottery, or the horses (my M-I-L regularly asks me to pick numbers for her! ). Just witness the queue for tickets inside the governments own supermarkets (NTUC) on a big-draw day.

Singapore Pools don't allow online betting from bankrupts and for the direct bets there is a maximum limit, as the primary reason to run Singapore Pools vs, illegal betting houses which have no limit on bet/loss ...

oh, Singapore Pools donates millions of unclaimed bets and vast part of the profit to charity, so its win/win ...