Indecent haste
Editorial
Stabroek News
January 29, 2007
Considering the indecent haste with which it was bundled through Parliament, the Gambling Prevention (Amendment) Act will leave critics shaking their heads in collective disbelief that the government has been so inconsiderate of well-founded concerns. The after-taste that remains heavy on the palate is that a few well-placed investors have been able to convince the government into agreeing to inscribe the act into the laws of Guyana brooking no dissent or even amendment. So, whereas in normal circumstances reasoned argument and the weight of public dissent in the form of the major religions might have scuttled legislation, resulted in significant amendment or at least delayed it there was to be nothing of the sort this time around.
Even the recently devised convention at the level of the Parliamentary Management Committee that all contentious legislation should automatically be forwarded to a select committee of Parliament for meaningful study aimed at bridging differences was thrown out of the window without the slightest qualms. This failing was even more conspicuous since the Health Facilities Licensing Bill was immediately dispatched to a select committee following concerns raised by a group of doctors on the same day that there was vigorous debate on Ms Sheila Holder's motion for a study to be done of the impacts of casino gambling. Does this not strike any member of the government's side as a mite incongruous - perhaps the Minister of Health, Dr Ramsammy - who sent the health bill to a select committee and who also was one of the more passionate defenders of the casino bill in and out of parliament? Was the uproar over the health facilities licensing bill of greater volume and more divisive? Definitely not. It seems, despite assurances to the contrary, that the casino gambling legislation is on a tight schedule to some greater purpose which will hopefully be illuminated some day and understood by the public.
Considering the circumstances, those in the religious community who had been promised deep and meaningful consultation by President Jagdeo before any move forward on this law could rightly feel hard done by the way it has been handled. It amuses further, that tourism, which has been held out as the sector to greatly benefit from this law, seems as divided as the rest of the country over it and in the dark as to the benefits of casino gambling. Indeed, there were no formal, structured consultations with the tourism stakeholders on this law. So, who is really to benefit from this law and how will that benefit translate into the improvement of the country as a whole? Very many Guyanese will be watching on interestedly.
One of the key concerns glossed over by the government side in the public and parliamentary debate was the whole question of how casino gambling might turn this country into a haven for money laundering. Aside from a slight reference to record-keeping at casinos the recently passed legislation does not address this matter in any detail. Indeed, in well-ordered environments it wouldn't have to as there would be separate legislation addressing money laundering in detail. And there is such legislation here, save for the not-so-minor indictment that since being passed in 2000 the anti-money laundering law has been dormant and has not led to the pursuit of a single case in the courts of this land. It has also led to the creation of a Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) which has never been heard from or opened itself to even the barest public scrutiny. We are now being told that very shortly new anti-money laundering legislation with asset forfeiture powers will be brought to parliament to replace the one that has never functioned and presumably a new FIU would also have to be set up. Would this state of affairs convince anyone that this government is doing all it can to track down money launderers and dismantle illicit businesses? This year will be the 15th that PPP/C governments have been in power, yet, in a region brimming with drug traffickers shuttling cargoes of cocaine up north and using Guyana as a drug transshipment point the country is protected by somnolescent anti-money laundering legislation and has not successfully prosecuted a single drug figure of any significance.
As we have argued before, the job of dismantling the drug network that scars Guyana has been left to foreign jurisdictions, in particular, the US. After having functioned here for many years in seemingly legitimate businesses, the US now has businessman Mr Roger Khan before a New York court on a charge of importing cocaine into that country. Time will tell whether US prosecutors have a strong case and whether the authorities here should have been more alert to his activities notwithstanding his contention that he provided invaluable assistance to the police force in recent years.
Though shameful and belittling, it would have dawned upon all Guyanese eventually that the move against Mr Khan was not initiated in the boiler rooms of the local narcotics and anti-money laundering battleships. It had the first glimmers of life in the annual US State Department report on drug trafficking and money laundering which was issued on March 1 last year and listed a company associated with Khan. That set everything into motion.
That annual report also had much to say about money laundering and its impact on this economy. Considering the barren debate in Parliament on the casino bill it could well be that well-meaning critics would look forward to this year's instalment of the US report to increase the pressure on the drug trade and money laundering. What a pity.