of 55,000 at risk but no problem

In the Straits Times today regarding the topic of having ca-Sin-No here in Singapore, it says that "Gambling addicts: 55,000 at risk".

But on the other hand, in today's Today frontpage news states "What gambling problem?"

So is having a ca-Sin-No here a problem or not? One paper says at risk, the other says what problem.

My colleague just told me that his brother goes to Macau for his "gambling" trips once every month. Now with the ca-Sin-No within driving distance, his brother could save the hassle of planning for his trips abroad and also save extra money spent on accomodation. So with the ca-Sin-No here, it'll be a cheaper alternative.

But what other implications will there be? More frequent trips to the ca-Sin-No?

Check out caSinNocity for updates on this issue. Thanks to Alex Huang

There are some feedbacks at the Feedback Unit on the topic of "Social Safeguards for Integrated Resort with CaSinNo Gaming"

Updates:
- Jumping on bandwagons is hard to do: by Wannabe Lawyer
- the HOT acroynm now: by aGentX