http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/246100/1/.html
Oh I'm sure Genting got the Sentosa IR on merit, everything in its proposal having been tried, tested and nothing too weird, but the political benefits couldn't have hurt.
All along I'd been saying in face-to-face though not online that Kerzner's "robotic fish" would be too... robotic... heh, and Eighth Wonder's Harry's Island was just too "tacky"; not to mention too kiss-a&*@ - given that Lee Kuan Yew is also known as Harry Lee. Lots of Singaporeans must have winced at the obvious sucker-u**er connotations of the name.
But the clincher - I speculate - and this this is never admitted in the official grounds of decision - is that a failure to award to Genting would have resulted in intense, totally unfriendly and uncertain competition with the region's most established (by far) resorts operator. Genting's operations in Australia (Perth - Burswood), the Phillipines and finally in Malaysia where the casino is a prosperous national landmark in a majority-Muslim country clearly viewable from Kuala Lumpur (more than a hundred kilometres away) - on a good day - gave it a location-specific performance record nobody else could match, least of all the angmolang from Las Vegas.
Giving it to Genting totally killed the idea of a Universal theme park in Southern Johor (in consideration since 1998, when Renong still ran Nusajaya), co-opted Genting into making the resort work together with all its other operations and not in do-or-die competition against them, and was tightly worded enough to minimise any risk that Genting would try a typical Microsoft "buy-it-to-kill-it" strategy. As for political risk vis-a-vis Malaysia (always a difficult relationship where Singapore is concerned), Lim Goh Tong & Co owe nothing to the Malay-dominated government of Malaysia; Malaysia is fortunate to have received what it did (and is, to receive what it still does) by way of tax revenues and other tourism-related benefits from the Genting group and if Goh Tong had to he'd leave Malaysia with his whole family and business in a flash, say, if PAS came to power in the Federal government.
All in, the correct decision to make, which is nothing less than what I would expect of the world's best civil service.
LMT
LawMan's Dogs
Killer Beasts Doing Breakfast
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Saturday, December 02, 2006
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
November 29, 2006
Defenders of the six outraged imams removed from a Minneapolis flight last week want people to think that airline officials overreacted by removing them from the plane -- that all the imams were doing was trying to pray. But listen to what they did. It wasn't just praying.
The imams left their assigned seats shortly before takeoff in violation of the rules -- and then formed the same seating pattern that al Qaeda uses to test in-flight security. They switched "to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin," Audrey Hudson reported in yesterday's editions of The Washington Times. In the course of this episode they prayed loudly -- this is the part the imams are now focusing on -- shouting in voices that even the gate agents outside the plane heard. But the praying isn't the issue.
The provocative seat-switching is. Now, there's a chance that it wasn't a deliberately provocative act. There's also a chance that pigs might fly, or that beer might fall from the heavens. We've never heard of a Muslim religious tenet that requires worshippers to occupy the entry and exit routes of an airliner. That's because there isn't any.
Was this an orchestrated ploy to intimidate airlines -- to exploit American civil-rights law? We can't peer inside the hearts and minds of these six men. But considering the details unearthed this week, that's where the evidence points.
To hear these imams' defenders, you would think that the freedom to pray is the issue. Here's Mohammed Abu Hannoud of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the country's largest Islamic advocacy group: "I think we should be smart enough to distinguish between peaceful Muslims and terrorists."
The imams should be smart enough -- we certainly think that they are smart enough -- to know that if they engage in seating maneuvers that mimic al Qaeda's, they will be under immediate suspicion and will be removed from the airplane.
There is no civil right to disobey airline seating rules, occupy the exits and entries of an airplane and shout loudly. Not for Muslims or Christians or anyone else.
OK OK I know : infringement of copyright here. Material reproduced without any permission whatsoever from the Washington Times. Lack of a profit (or a profit motive) and clear attribution are not a carte blanche to infringe. But I just couldn't resist. If you want to, visit the Washington Times yourself for more.
LMT
November 29, 2006
Defenders of the six outraged imams removed from a Minneapolis flight last week want people to think that airline officials overreacted by removing them from the plane -- that all the imams were doing was trying to pray. But listen to what they did. It wasn't just praying.
The imams left their assigned seats shortly before takeoff in violation of the rules -- and then formed the same seating pattern that al Qaeda uses to test in-flight security. They switched "to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin," Audrey Hudson reported in yesterday's editions of The Washington Times. In the course of this episode they prayed loudly -- this is the part the imams are now focusing on -- shouting in voices that even the gate agents outside the plane heard. But the praying isn't the issue.
The provocative seat-switching is. Now, there's a chance that it wasn't a deliberately provocative act. There's also a chance that pigs might fly, or that beer might fall from the heavens. We've never heard of a Muslim religious tenet that requires worshippers to occupy the entry and exit routes of an airliner. That's because there isn't any.
Was this an orchestrated ploy to intimidate airlines -- to exploit American civil-rights law? We can't peer inside the hearts and minds of these six men. But considering the details unearthed this week, that's where the evidence points.
To hear these imams' defenders, you would think that the freedom to pray is the issue. Here's Mohammed Abu Hannoud of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the country's largest Islamic advocacy group: "I think we should be smart enough to distinguish between peaceful Muslims and terrorists."
The imams should be smart enough -- we certainly think that they are smart enough -- to know that if they engage in seating maneuvers that mimic al Qaeda's, they will be under immediate suspicion and will be removed from the airplane.
There is no civil right to disobey airline seating rules, occupy the exits and entries of an airplane and shout loudly. Not for Muslims or Christians or anyone else.
OK OK I know : infringement of copyright here. Material reproduced without any permission whatsoever from the Washington Times. Lack of a profit (or a profit motive) and clear attribution are not a carte blanche to infringe. But I just couldn't resist. If you want to, visit the Washington Times yourself for more.
LMT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)