Casino licences: who will get them?
Stabroek News
January 23, 2007
The moral protest by local religious organizations over the official introduction of casino gambling in Guyana has obscured a disturbing feature of this development.
It has been made clear by high officials and by the Bill laid in parliament that licences will only be granted to 'new' large hotels. Indeed, President Jagdeo himself publicly declared this while berating the Pegasus and its owners as being unfit by his standards.
Why?
The new section 29 of the Gambling Prevention Act introduced by the Bill, after permitting the issue by a new Gaming Authority appointed by the Minister of up to three casino licences per region, states:
"No casino premises licence may be issued except for a new hotel or resort complex - (a) with a minimum of one hundred and fifty rooms allocated for accommodation; and (b) holding a minimum rating prescribed by regulations."
The Minister is given wide provisions to make regulations by the new section 32 introduced by the Bill. Indeed, apart from the general moral argument concerning the existence of casinos, the content and nature of these regulations may vitally influence the nature of the legislation, and the debate on the Bill in parliament and the country as a whole should not be concluded until a draft of the intended regulations is produced and circulated by the government.
Who are the persons who are intended to constitute the Gaming Authority? What criteria will be prescribed for consideration in determining an application for a licence? Do these include reasonable certainty that the applicant is unconnected with any illicit trade, and can satisfy the Authority that his funds and assets have a legitimate source?
It must also be noted that these regulations are not made subject to either affirmative or negative resolution of parliament. This is another of many examples of parliament being treated as simply a rubber stamp by the executive, which rams such intended legislation through by its submissive parliamentary majority, without any, or any proper consultation or prior notice, then does as it pleases in implementing it.
Surely such ethically sensitive and socially and economically dangerous matters (if further economic encroachment by the drug culture is regarded as such by those responsible) require different treatment.
This is to presume good faith on the part of the government. However, the provisions of the new section 29 (3) put this presumption in serious doubt.
Why only "new" hotels and resorts? Why not permit a licence to be issued to 'old' hotels and resorts owned by reputable persons or companies with a proven track record, who may expand and upgrade their existing facilities?
Is there any difference, perceptible to the Government, between 'new' and 'old' hoteliers? Are the former more legitimate or less avaricious than the latter? Do they have a superior loyalty to the National Development Strategy? What is the real distinction?