Either a grand deception or an unconstitutionality
The Alliance for Change Column
Kaieteur News
January 28, 2007
Madam Speaker, it is clear from the Government's side, and an emphatic admission on its part, that this Government is tied to gambling because of the enormous revenues derived from gambling. This PPP Government is perhaps the most heavily addicted party in the gambling arena now.
Its main economic argument revolves principally around two factors: revenues and job creation. The revenues obtained, they say, will be transferred into general revenues, which are much needed to achieve the Government's fiscal objective – I suppose deficit reduction, and fiscal stabilisation.
With citizens revolting against further taxation, it is consequently difficult for the Government to resist the temptation to join the gambling bandwagon. In this fashion, this PPP Government would be able to avoid raising further taxes to meet their fiscal objectives. And then they will spend and allocate these revenues with minimal public scrutiny a la the Lotto Funds which, as you know, never can find its rightful destination: the Consolidated Fund.
Well, I have three objections against these arguments, which I feel should be emphasised.
Firstly, Government being such an active participant in the gambling industry, is serving in two capacities, one as a beneficiary and the other as a regulator, an awkward duality. There is absolutely no separation of these two functions in the Bill that we Parliamentarians can see and debate on. It is hidden away under this new-found method of governance – future Ministerial regulation-making, something very dangerous to Parliamentary democracy. To be both a beneficiary and regulator is like the fox watching the chicken coop.
Secondly, this so-called working class Government -- and this is the indignity of it all -- is trading on Guyanese hopes that casino gambling offers a chance to improve their lives; that this hardcore variety of gambling is a good habit to indulge in, and will finance society's needs and priorities! That is the image being set by this Government on gambling! Could you believe this, Madam Speaker?
Thirdly, all the Government speakers have quoted studies which show the glamour and glitz of this business. None thus far has been decent enough to appreciate the huge negatives this industry can have for a poor, ill-institutioned country as ours. These ills have been explicitly stated in the speeches of Chantalle Smith and David Patterson, my esteemed AFC colleagues. I will not repeat them.
Neither were any of the Government speakers discerning enough to realise that these studies which show up the positives are generally done by casino proponents, who paint an optimistic picture. These studies are generally done by the gambling industry itself, and are self-serving and biased.
Only last week, the Shiela Holder Motion to have a study done by a neutral local body was thrown out by this Government. Why? Because this Government is becoming an instrument of gambling-entrenched interests which manipulate public opinion about these activities, and which have more to do with their agendas than they do with the public interest.
Honourable Member Mr. Odinga quotes the billions gambling bring in for Las Vegas . Mr. Irfan Ali glows in the examples of Asian countries benefiting from the wealth casino gambling brings in. Honourable Maniram Prashad quoted the case of Macau . Well, Madam Speaker, I want to say that is one big bird they are giving us.
Mr. Clement Rohee and Dr. Fox do not like the Biblical/religious arguments against gambling. I can appreciate their preference for the more secular argument. But even when we address gambling on a secular platform, we still have to ensure we do not breach the prohibitions of our secular Bible, if I may so call it, that is, the Constitution of Guyana. What does this Book say on the issue?
But just before I quote Article 149 of that Bible, I wish to mention what the President told the Religious Leaders: “Guyanese, unless they are casino workers, or paid guests in these hotels, will not be allowed into these casinos. Only foreigners and only those Guyanese who have citizenship or residency status for some other country will be permitted.”
I notice grumbling on the Government benches. Are you saying this is not what the President said? Well, what then did he tell the Religious Leaders? I hope there is no deception or misrepresentation on Your Excellency's part.
This is the effect and spirit, if not the exact terms, what the President said. “Guyanese living here will be excluded from accessing the casinos”.
Now what does Article 149 say? It says: “No law shall make any provision that is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect”. And discriminatory means “affording different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their…… race, political opinion, colour, creed, age, gender, or place of origin”. To exclude me or, say, my good friend Bishop Juan Edghill because we are Guyanese not reaching the status of casino worker or paid guests is discriminatory on grounds of place of origin, just like it would have been if we were excluded because we were brown and black!
This Bill is wholly unconstitutional! To ensure that it becomes constitutional, a constitutional amendment to Article 149 must first be passed to accommodate this abominable “Guyanese” exclusion, this “place of origin” restriction. Any good lawyer could successfully move such a constitutional motion in our High Court. I can foresee that an enterprising lawyer may even make out a case for Le Meridien Pegasus moving a motion for discrimination on grounds of age in the context of being excluded by virtue of being “old” as against Buddy's Hotel, which is “new”.
[An abridged version, with minor modifications, of speech delivered on the Casino Gambling Bill in the National Assembly on Monday 22nd January, 2007 by KHEMRAJ RAMJATTAN, AFC Leader.]