Legalizing Sports gambling

I thought I did not want to write on this subject. Recently Dr Mahathir came out to support sports betting. Just yesterday, the man whose mouth is faster than his brain, the Minister Nazri TS Aziz said lets legalise the sports betting because this signifies our respects for those who like to gamble. The Chinese like to gamble. We know some ministers, UMNO included like to gamble too. We must respect them too.

So I find myself not asking anything more than what Nazri asks. Lets honour those who like to fornicate around by legalising prostitution. We must respect them. Let's allocate more land for the rearing of pigs because to do so, we show our respects. As long as the Muslims don't partake in all these. Hell, we must also facilitate the setting up of alcoholic and beer manufacturing facilities, if that beverage is required and needed for some people's sustenance.

Then if anyone violates the respects, they must be dealt with severely.

And not to miss the bandwagon, Kaveas of PPP says he supports the sports betting. Now it's becoming more interesting. Chua Soi Lek sees nothing wrong in legalising gambling. He has already reached the apex of sinning - gambling is nothing to him.

But when PPP apes what others are saying- I cannot tahan anymore. I have to write something. Now.

PPP can say whatever it wants. No one wants to listen to them. I don't know why BN should carry this living monitor lizard. To the Malay- the saying memikul biawak hidup carries with it, despicable connotations. PPP is the basket case among BN component parties. The people at large don't care what Kaveas and his speckled batik-shirted ride- alongs want to say. They can't win a single seat and has to contend with begging the PM for a seat through the backdoor. What value does PPP give to BN? Its presence causes indigestion to Samy Vellu. The truth is, PPP is more renowned by its internal squabbles than stellar leadership. That it has none.

Go on- legalise everything because as Kaveas says, our society has accepted reality. He of course means a particular section of society. The mother lode of all gambling is located at Genting Higlands. The Genting group pays more than a Billion Dollars to acquire a gambling licence in Singapore. Here, Ascot Sports was given the opportunity to make RM 575,000,000 on VT's 70% share. The son, because he is a scrooge, chooses to keep his 30% share.

What we have missed is, Ascot Sports was given the license free and the possessor of the licence was able to tell the SC that he is injecting a valuable portfolio to boost the value of his shares.

PPP has got the wrong message- we will also support the legalisation of sports betting and other gambling and gambling permutations. We don't care – but don't legalise it ONLY for Vincent Tan. Why not legalise all those illegal gambling owned by ALL operators. Then this lucrative business is not monopolised by ONE person. Will PPP support legalising all the illegal gambling if these shadow operators, apply to legalise their underground business?

Why should preference be given only to Vincent Tan?

If Vincent Tan is the only person preferred, then he must have done something very very useful to the leaders of this government to such a degree, that the leader of this country is beholden to him. So he brushes aside any opposition and any indiscretions to insist giving it to Vincent Tan.

What has Vincent Tan done to this country which cannot be done by others IF given the same opportunities? VT wasn't successful in all his ventures was he?

What we are currently seeing is the mounting of a concerted rear guard attack to destroy all opposition to granting the license. This could suggest that the licence has actually been given by the MOF.

What's troubling us over the sudden rear guard counter attack? It is this. I quote extensively from this blogger who commented on my blog.

The Ascot-Vincent Tan licence is a monopoly licence, given, without competition, and on the quiet, to an individual who is already enormously wealthy after another such licence in the past. No terms have been made public. No safeguards in place to protect the public's larger interests. No one knows what political quid pro quo have been negotiated.

There is also the question on the morality of a government which, acting on behalf of all the people, gives away to its friends and allies valuable things that belong to all the people. And of how it leaves the common people short-changed, and tries to make a virtue of it.

It is only pragmatic to accept that gambling will exist in a pluralistic society, and if left unregulated will only feed the underworld. That calls for licensing, but with strong conditions to ensure that the common good is served, and not made a means to line the pockets of the wealthy or of the powerful.

It will indeed line the pockets of the wealthy if legalising it confers a monopoly by businesses held by ONE person.