President Bharrat Jagdeo apologised to the leaders of the local religious community for the disparaging remarks made by two government ministers at the January 11 sitting of parliament, according to the head of the Guyana Council of Churches (GCC).
The remarks were made by Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee and Minister in the Ministry of Education Dr Desrey Fox during the debate on a motion calling on the government to defer the passage of the Gambling Prevention (Amendment) Bill which seeks to introduce casino gambling.
Rohee in his remarks had said that the religious bodies should stay away from matters of the state and had condemned the Roman Catholic Church, in particular, with reference to the Spanish Inquisition.
Fox on the other hand had delivered a scathing critique of the religious community, which she decried for ignoring other issues, including those close to home. Dr Fox played up the economic benefits of casino gambling, and its potential for boosting revenue and tourism in the country.
According to Chairman of the GCC, Rev Alphonso Porter, Jagdeo made the apology during a two-hour meeting held yesterday at the request of the leaders of the Hindu, Muslim, Baha’i and Christian religions to express concerns about the enactment of legislation to deal with casino gambling.
Porter said that at the meeting, which was very cordial, the President said Rohee and Fox were not speaking on the government’s behalf but on their own.
However, he was reminded that they were in the House as elected representatives of the government.
Jagdeo assured the religious community that he chided Rohee and Fox at the Cabinet level about their remarks and said that it should not happen again.
Porter said the President also apologized for the limited consultations that were held on the issue but said that he was of the view that there had eventually been widespread consultations based on reports he had received.
However, he indicated that in spite of the religious community’s concerns the government would be going ahead with enacting the legislation because of the economic gains it was expected to provide. Though they asked, Porter said, the President could not tell them in quantifiable terms how the revenue generated was going to benefit the nation.
Asked why the rush to move the bill through parliament, Porter said the President said there was no rush and the casino bill had nothing to do with the Cricket World Cup 2007. However, the President had indicated to the media at the dedication of the Guyana National Stadium at Providence, East Bank Demerara that the government would be moving to parliament to enact legislation for casino gambling in time for the CWC 2007.
The President told the religious leaders that even after the bill was passed there would be a six-month period before the licence was issued. This is not included in the bill, but might be part of the regulations governing the operations of the casinos.
He said the President said that only new hotels, that is Buddy’s International Hotel and the Casique Suites and Banqueting Halls would initially be eligible but even those would have to meet the standard of a four-star hotel. He said Le Meridien Pegasus Hotel would not qualify simply because it was said it had the standard of a three-star hotel.
He said the President told them that their concerns were already considered in the bill by the exclusion of Guyanese but they contended that the bill only made reference to guests and workers. However, the President said provision was being made to allow only guests with foreign passports entry into casinos.
He said there would be better management in terms of security and policing and with regard to money laundering the government was moving to enact new legislation.
The Ministry of Human Services and Social Security would be addressing a number of social issues as well.
He asked the religious leaders to continue to espouse the moral values they uphold to their congregations.
The religious community strongly opposes the legalising of casino gambling and took several actions to make their concerns known. These included a petition to parliament, picketing and letters to MPs calling on them to vote against the bill.
