The government last night forged ahead with plans for the controversial casino gambling bill despite a raft of challenges yesterday which included protests outside Parliament, a petition signed by 40,000 and an opposition motion seeking to have a study done on possible impacts.
Debate on the opposition motion closed at about 10.50 pm when Prime Minister Sam Hinds took to the floor of the National Assembly to deny the claims that the government acted arrogantly and that it ignored the opinions of religious groups. He maintained that the government was respectful of the opinions of the religious community as well as other civic groups. However, he added that the government simply did not accept that it would be helpful to pursue the proposal for a study, since it might take more than three months and would in any case bring stakeholders to the same point. “It’s an inconclusive point, either way,” he said, adding later that when there are such fundamental positions on issues discussions and consultations for a long period might prove to be unhelpful.
Hinds recalled that there were fears that accompanied the reintroduction of the lottery, and he hoped that all those now concerned would join with the government to prevent any negative ramifications. The motion was defeated by the government majority on a simple vote. No division was called for. The second reading and passage of the bill are expected in just over a week’s time.
Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee presented the enabling bill entitled ‘Gambling Prevention (Amendment) Bill 2006 to the National Assembly for the first reading to a full gallery that comprised mainly representatives of the Christian and Muslim communities which have publicly opposed the bill and are calling for its withdrawal and wider consultation.
Rohee asserted that Guyana is a democracy and people are free to express their opinions on any issue which the government announces publicly but he said, “I would wish to caution that religious groups who based their arguments upon certain doctrines have no place or should have no place in state decisions.”
In addition, the Central Islamic Organisation of Guyana (CIOG) in a letter circulated to all Members of Parliament yesterday appealed to them to register their vote against the legislation.
Out of a hat
Presenting the motion seeking to have the University of Guyana conduct relevant studies, Alliance For Change (AFC) MP Sheila Holder argued that public policy ought not to be pulled out of a hat and decided on arbitrarily by government in breach of the constitution of Guyana. She contended that before the decision to introduce and legalise casino gambling was made, it was imperative that an impact assessment be done to ascertain whether Guyana has the wherewithal to minimize the deleterious effects of casino gambling on the society; and that the National Assembly enlist the intellectual capacity of the University of Guyana to aid in arriving at informed decisions on the issue for the national good.
She said that since the PPP/C gained the majority at elections it is entitled to devise its own legislative agenda but when that right clashes with those of the people, the government has the right to heed the warnings of the people in keeping with the country’s constitution.
Holder said that any prudent and accountable government would consider it mandatory to explain how it was that casino gambling was being considered when it appears in no strategic national plan and since it was not considered a viable option in the broad-based consultative National Development Strategy. Given those facts, she advocated a thorough examination of the pros and cons of casino gambling for the benefit of the wider society and that it should not be introduced solely because of Cricket World Cup 2007.
The AFC MP piloted the motion calling for parliament to call on the government to retain expertise within UG to conduct a study within a three-month time frame to advise if casino gambling would add to Guyana’s tourism product given the profile of visitors coming into Guyana, or whether it would exacerbate the current crime situation; that parliament direct the government to enlist UG to advise on the practicality of government’s proposed intention to exclude Guyanese from engaging in casino gambling in Guyana in the context of administrative, budgetary and policing measures that would be required; and that parliament calls on the government to retain the services of academics at the University of Guyana to advise under what conditions, if any, revenues from the gaming industry would positively impact economic development in Guyana and mitigate the negatives associated with the gaming industry.
Turning to the Speaker, Ralph Ramkarran’s caution in keeping with section 43 – Anticipation of the Standing Order which reads “It shall be out of order to anticipate a bill by discussion upon a motion dealing with the subject matter of the bill”, Holder argued that her motion was presented to parliament on December 14 and the bill to parliament was dated December 28. In her opinion it was due to be on the order paper at an earlier date or it should have been heard even before the bill was laid in parliament.
Secular
In his presentation Rohee said that government formulates its economic policy according to constitutional guidelines and the accusation that government pulls public policy out of a hat was misguided.
With direct reference to the religious community, he said that, “We must not look at good governance through the values that are associated with one section of our society given the fact that we live in a secular democratic state.”
Arguing that casino gambling was contributing to tourism and benefiting the economies of other Caribbean countries namely The Bahamas, Suriname and Belize, according to an Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) report, Rohee said that in a four-page report on Guyana there was no mention of the contribution of tourism to the Guyana economy. As such he feels that casino gambling would contribute to the growth of the country’s economy.
He said that all the reports and studies done on casino gambling and which were being quoted were the same that gave the positives and the negatives and the findings were being used selectively by those who oppose it.
He denied that anyone in the government had said that the bill was being laid in parliament to specifically facilitate casino gambling for CWC 2007. It is on record that President Bharrat Jagdeo told the media at the dedication of the Guyana National Stadium in December last year that legislation would be in place to enable casino gambling for CWC 2007.
Rohee considered those against casino gambling, who said they would do anything to ensure that it was not approved by parliament, as a threat to national security.
He said that the way the argument was proceeding in some sections of society it seemed as though those on the government benches were “a bunch of devils and were involved in a number of activities.”
Presenting his arguments, PNCR-1G MP Aubrey Norton said that Rohee admitted that the government needed to generate wealth and was resorting to casino gambling. It was an admission, he contended, by the government that it has failed in other areas to bring investment to the country and as a last resort a move has been made to casino gambling.
Though Rohee contended that Guyana was a democracy, Norton said that the bill was excluding a lot of Guyanese and quipped he “hoped that all would be excluded”. Apart from violating the constitutional right of Guyanese to certain freedoms, he said that the government through the bill was seeking to introduce a class system.
He said that no one would doubt that casino gambling would bring economic gains but he said the real issue was whether the social cost would be worth the economic gains.
Petition
The petition from the combined Christian co
mmunity presented earlier by PNCR-1G MP Volda Lawrence, was signed by President of the Georgetown Ministers’ Fellowship Reverend Raphael Massiah; Chairman of the Guyana Council of Churches Reverend Alphonso Porter and President of the Guyana Evangelical Fellowship Pastor Lloyd Stewart.
The petition, urging the withdrawal of the bill submitted that it was among other things disingenuous, opportunistic, unconstitutional and conflicted with the protection of various rights granted to citizens and the parliament of Guyana in its attempt to institute casino gambling.
The petition said that petitioners have engaged in academic research and verbal polling in its various districts, and can sincerely conclude that the majority of Guyanese if given the opportunity to participate in the political process as the Constitution guarantees would be “unalterably opposed to such a move.”
The CIOG in its letter to the MPs said that government’s decision to move to parliament was taken without adequate consultation and it was not reflective of the views of the vast majority of God-fearing, and/or otherwise morally conscious Guyanese, whether they be Muslims or not.
Apart from advancing views similar to the Christian community but quoting from the Holy Quran, the CIOG said that nowhere in the proposed amendment is provision made for the exclusion of Guyanese to the casinos, except for only workers and “paying guests
