When members of the opposition opposed the controversial casino gambling bill, they had more than the religious fallout on their minds but in the end the argument offered by PPP/C MP Moses Nagamootoo that the government has a mandate prevailed.
After two days of heated debate, the bill was passed late on Monday night in the face of concerns about the real economic benefits, plans for regulations and safeguards against the resulting social ills.
The Prevention of Gambl-ing (Amendment) Bill provides for casino licences to be issued to a new hotel or resort complex with a minimum of 150 rooms and holding a minimum rating prescribed by regulations. It also allows for the establishment of a Gaming Authority, which may issue to any person, subject to any condition it thinks fit, a casino premises licence authorizing any place to be operated as a casino.
It also says that no more than three casino premises licences may be issued in respect of any one of the ten administrative regions. It has led to a storm of controversy for the government, which has been severely criticised by the religious community for failing to consult and ignoring the social implications.
PNCR MP Winton Murray made it very clear that his party was not trying a filibuster to delay the passage of the Bill. “We are here about the people’s business,” he said, “and we will speak as long as possible to prosecute it.” Murray explained that he did not have a fundamentalist approach to the bill, but he was nonetheless worried about the content of the legislation and the lack of any detailed mechanisms to treat with the crime that would result. He also said that the legislation was silent on what benefits would accrue to Guyana, so that these can be weighed against the costs. “But not a single member, apart from sweet generalities, has informed the National Assembly of the way in which the bill will benefit,” he said. “Surely the National Assembly has a right to know?” Murray was also worried about the power granted to the Minister in the bill. PNCR MP Debra Backer had similar concerns and she said the government failed to satisfy its critics. She noted the absence of any information about the costs of licences, as well as about the composition of the gaming authority.
PPP/C MP Moses Nagamootoo told the House that by virtue of the August 2006 general elections the government had a mandate from the people. He said it had the endorsement of the people to continue economic development. Nagamootoo pointed out that the real controversy is not the legalising of gambling but the regulations to govern it. He did acknowledge that nothing much had been said about the proposed gaming authority, and how it would be composed. Nonetheless, he felt that a case had been made for the bill, which he said would see the development of society by opening a window of economic activities.
He said while the government believes in public opinion, the manner in which it brought the legislation was somewhat inelegant. And there might have been need for more sectoral consultation beyond the parliament. How-ever, he opined that after the elections, it is implied that the government has the mandate to move ahead. “Success resides with those who dare,” Nagamootoo said, “And this legislation is a pioneering venture into an area not charted before.”
Nagamootoo, a Christian, also acknowledged the negatives associated with casino gambling and he agreed that there would be need for strict regulations to prevent abuses. He also noted the likely need to ensure that there are Alcoholics Anonymous groups as well as arrangements for counselling for casino gamblers. He explained that in some of the casinos in the US, there are telephone numbers for Gambling Anonymous on every slot machine. As for money laundering, he said it would be here whether or not there are casinos.
GAP-ROAR MP Everall Franklin said the government is responsible to all people, including those of various faiths. At the same time, he noted that religious leaders have to offer leadership to their following on issues that they see fit. He emphasised that faith must be backed up by action and he mentioned the church’s response to the Termination of Pregnancy Bill. He said that notwithstanding the passage of the bill, the religious community had a responsibility to offer alternatives to pregnant women and girls. “They have not backed up their faith with action,” Franklin said, “They must now prepare for this fight.”
Franklin urged members to vote against the bill or abstain. He explained that the government must face its citizens and argue its case on contentious issues, rather than hiding behind a majority. He noted that Guyana would be in the spotlight of the world’s criminal entrepreneurs once gambling is legalised and he expressed doubts about the government’s ability to deal with the organised crime he thought likely to result.
AFC MP David Patterson also lamented what he saw as the government’s failure to present a tangible analysis of what legalised casino gambling would yield. He questioned why any person would leave the other casino gambling destinations around the world for Guyana, and he opined that the government could not make it more attractive. Patterson warned about the consequences, while pointing out that only a small group of persons and the government would stand to benefit.
AFC MP Khemraj Ramjattan noted that the government resisted a study to see how casino gambling would impact. He complained about the “opaqueness” of the gaming authority envisaged in the legislation and described the government’s control over the agency as a fundamental defect.
