Casino bill passed -- after exhaustive debate
By Chamanlall Naipaul
Guyana Chronicle
January 23, 2007
THE controversial Gambling Prevention (Amendment) Bill was finally passed last night in the National Assembly after a marathon debate stretching over two days, which drew sharp divisions between the government and opposition.
When the vote was taken on a division, away from the traditional yes and no voting, 35 parliamentarians from the government voted for the bill while the combined opposition, which included the People’s National Congress-One Guyana (PNCR-1G), the Alliance For Change (AFC) and the Guyana Action Party/Rise Organise and Rebuild (GAP/ROAR) party, voted against, tallying 26 votes.
The debate, which saw presentations from 30 speakers, was interrupted on several occasions by parliamentarians who stood up on points of order and alleged violations of the Standing Orders and acting Speaker, Ms. Clarissa Riehl was forced to give rulings.
Government members Mr. Moses Nagamootoo and Ms. Gail Teixeira, on separate occasions during the presentation by Mr. Anthony Vieira of the PNCR-1G, objected on the ground of Vieira mentioning the President to influence the outcome of the debate.
Teixeira cited the violation of Standing Order 40 (1) while Nagamootoo referred to Standing Orders 41 (4) and 41 (8).
Leader of the Opposition and the PNCR, Mr. Robert Corbin sought to defend Vieira by indicating that the bill being debated has implications related to the President.
Ms. Riehl agreed with the submissions of the two government members and asked that the remarks of Vieira be deleted from the Hansard (official record) while cautioning Vieira.
The PNCR-1G advanced its arguments against the bill based on four main pillars -- religion and morality, the alleged failure of the government to provide figures to show the economic windfall that casinos will bring, the negative impact of casinos on the social fabric of society, and the fragile security system in Guyana not being able to cope with the attendant social ills associated with casinos, such as money laundering, prostitution, gangsterism and drug dealings.
The opposition speakers also charged that the government has not conducted any scientific and independent study on the impact and the benefits that will result from casinos.
Ms. Debbie Backer of the PNCR-1G also denounced the bill, describing it as being “empty” because essential information such as the cost of a licence and other details are not spelt out.
Co-leader of the AFC, Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan argued that the bill is a violation of Article 149 of the Constitution of Guyana in that it discriminates against Guyanese participating in casino gambling.
He also argued that the beneficiary, in this case the government, and the proposed Gaming Authority to overlook casino gambling, cannot go together and that instead it should be an independent watchdog body.
Nagamootoo, in his first presentation on his return to Parliament, lashed out at the opposition, arguing that it is behaving as if it is the first time gambling is being introduced in Guyana, recalling that the previous government in 1965 legalised radio bingo and lottery, indicating that the proceeds from it would have been used to rebuild the Georgetown Hospital which never materialised.
He noted that when the radio bingo and lottery legislation was being introduced there was no hue and cry then.
Nagamootoo said all the bill is seeking is to introduce an additional form of gambling as a means of enhancing the economy and the opposition was failing to see it as a “window of economic opportunities.”
However, he conceded that strict regulatory mechanisms will have to be implemented to curb the social ills associated with casino gambling. On the issue of money laundering, he asserted that it could actually help monitor such illegalities, as in some countries there is a ceiling limit that one can spend and if it is exceeded a red flag goes up which will alert monitoring agents.
He also informed the House that money laced with cocaine could be traced by a special detecting system.
The legislation, he added, should be seen as a pioneer into a new venture.
Home Affairs Minister, Mr. Clement Rohee, argued that in a free market economy, persons should have the choice of whether to participate or not, contending that detractors of the government accuse it of being anti-free market but when free market ventures are being introduced there is opposition.
He also denounced the allegation that casino gambling is seen by the government as rescuing the Guyana economy, positing that it is seen as one of the measures to boost tourism and the economy.
Rohee noted too that the sugar price cuts by the European Union which have resulted in Guyana losing US$37M, created a financial void and the government has to find the ways and means of narrowing that gap.
The minister said Guyana needs four casino-type hotels to meet its current tourism needs and each hotel will create 300 jobs, thus a total of 1,200 jobs could be created through the establishment of such facilities.
Rohee emphasised that such hotels will have to meet basic requirements and these include having a minimum of 150 rooms.