Sharp lines on casino bill
By Chamanlall Naipaul
Guyana Chronicle
January 20, 2007
THE controversial Gambling Prevention (Amendment) Bill was expected to be approved late last night with the government using its majority in the House to move the third reading and eventual passage of the bill.
The debate which stretched over several hours seemed likely to head past midnight.
The bill, which moved into its second reading at yesterday’s sitting of the National Assembly, saw an expected sharp line of division between members of the government and opposition, as the former advanced mainly economic arguments in favour of the proposed legislation while the latter contended that the issue of morality, social ills and respect for the views of the religious community must be respected and should take precedence over economic considerations.
Acting Speaker of the National Assembly, Ms. Clarissa Riehl, who presided over the sitting, allowed a motion by Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee to suspend the Standing Order 54 (1A) to facilitate debate on the bill.
She announced that Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr. Ralph Ramkarran is overseas for eye surgery.
During the sitting of the National Assembly last week, a debate on the issue also took place as a result of a motion brought before the House by the opposition. This resulted from a petition submitted by representatives of the religious community calling for the withdrawal of the bill, arguing that casino gambling breeds social ills and is against the tenets of religious values.
Mr. Rohee, who moved the second reading of the bill, said the issue of casino gambling has indeed spurred public debate and expressed the view that the arguments of those who oppose or support the legislation can be categorised as philosophical and practical, respectively.
However, he argued that apart from moral issues pertaining to casino gambling, economic, financial and social implications are of equal importance.
He quoted from the Constitution of Guyana to support his contention that all forms of economic ventures could be entered into to create a society where everyone is engaged in national development and all must benefit from economic advancement.
HOLDING THE BALANCE
Rohee conceded that in Guyana everyone is free to express their views on matters of national importance but in the final analysis it is the government which holds the balance in making decisions in the interest of the nation.
The government cannot flip-flop on economic issues, he argued, and cautioned the opposition “not to throw out the baby with the bath water”.
He also categorically rejected the view advanced by some that the legislation is made to facilitate Cricket World Cup, pointing out that it is part of the government’s drive to diversify and “dynamise” the tourism sector.
The minister also chided the opposition for accusing the government of being embedded in the past but at the same time when it seeks to introduce free market policies and principles it is being told to “hold back”.
He said that while responding to fears of money laundering, and fraud among others, which according to him could be real, or imagined, regulations and measures will be included to curb the negative spin-offs, such as money laundering and fraud that may result from casinos.
According to Rohee, a gaming authority will be established to enforce the regulations governing casinos and only those registered as guests will be allowed to gamble in the casinos.
However, he pointed out that morality is not something that can be legislated, and there must be freedom to participate in such activities but with accompanying protection and social safety nets for the wider society.
The minister also dismissed the impression he said is being created by some sections of the society that Guyana will become a place whereby every shop and corner will have slot machines similar to what obtains in other countries, pointing out that instead the government is seeking to have a restricted and highly regulated gaming business.
Rohee, furthering his arguments in favour of the introduction of casino gambling, cited studies done in South Africa and the UK, which according to him have shown that the gambling industry is contributing significantly to economic development.
Leader of the Opposition and the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR), Mr. Robert Corbin, who took a diametrically opposing stance on the bill, opened his presentation with some degree of drama as he read the prayers of the National Assembly to imbue the repugnance of the religious community to the legislation, and quoted from the Holy Book of Muslims, the Quran to show that Islam is totally opposed to gambling and intoxicants.
He said that apart from all the other arguments being advanced against casino gambling, he is purely opposed to it on religious grounds.
According to Corbin, the views of the religious groups must be respected which he said represent some 95% of the Guyanese population.
He further argued that according to the Constitution of Guyana, the purpose of Parliament is to give sovereignty to the people and on the basis of such widespread opposition the bill should be completely withdrawn.
Corbin also questioned how revenues from casinos will be collected, asserting that the laws governing the collection of revenue from the Guyana Lottery Company are being “flouted”, as it is not being paid into the Consolidated Fund, but instead is being controlled by the Office of the President.
NO SOLID ECONOMIC BASIS
Responding to Rohee’s argument of the merits of casino gambling based on studies done in South Africa and the UK, Corbin charged that no such studies have been done in Guyana, adding that the National Development Strategy from which the government purports to be guided in its economic strategy “does not say a word on gambling” as a means of economic development.
He further contended that gambling has no solid economic basis as a means of spurring tourism or economic development.
The Opposition Leader asserted that he speaks with knowledge of casinos, narrating to the House his experience of a visit to a casino in the Bahamas during his tenure as a government minister, where he observed at first hand where Bahamians, who according to law are not allowed to gamble in casinos, were found to be there through illegal means.
He therefore queried why the government is in such a haste to pass legislation on a matter of such national importance.
He also indicated that members of his party will be allowed to vote on the issue according to their conscience rather than along the traditional party line.
Minister of Tourism, Industry and Commerce, Mr. Manniram Prashad quoted from several academic sources which showed how the gambling industry has contributed significantly to the economic development of Macao and the University of Macao has been actually integrated into the industry there and benefiting from it.
He also pointed out how Costa Rica and Belize, which are eco-tourist attractions, are benefiting from the gambling industry, positing that Guyana which has immense eco-tourist potential could also like those countries enjoy similar benefits from casino gambling.
He too echoed Rohee’s assurances that the casino gambling will be a highly regulated business with all the necessary protective measures in place.
Prashad also lauded the social work of the religious community and expressed respect for their views, but reminded the House of a period in Guyana when they could not have expressed their views freely as they do now, reminding them of the fate of Father Bernard Darke.
Ms. Volda Lawrence of the PNCR-1G claimed that gambling is a huge source of funds for the government which is cash-strapped but argued that this could be quantified whereas the social evils cannot even be estimated.
According to her, “we are shooting ourselves in our foot” and casino gambling will further aggravate the already existing social evils in the society.
She further contended that the church has a voice and therefore “must be heard”, and as such called for the outcome of the bill to be determined by a referendum.
Co-leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Mr. Raphael Trotman also expressed his opposition to the bill, voicing concerns that no one from the government side had articulated how the regulations governing casino gambling will be enforced and how revenues will be collected.
He also said he finds it paradoxical that an Act which was enacted as far back as 1902 during the time when the then parliament was referred to as the Court of Policy, to prevent gambling, is now being amended to permit gambling.
According to him, the present move by the government is “inelegantly and violently opening up a Pandora’s box.”