There are countries and cities that have built up their economies on gambling. Some of these do not consider it necessary to justify their decision while others argue that it is an industry that brings in revenue through taxes and tourism, provides employment and offers entertainment. Accordingly, they regard gambling as ethically neutral. Historically, gambling has been frowned upon in Guyana, based on religious values embraced by persons drawn from the several religions followed by our many different ethnic communities. The strength of opposition stretches across religions with Muslims being perhaps the most strongly opposed.
It is against that background that Ram & McRae approaches a Gaming Policy developed and circulated by the Gaming Authority. The Policy signals Government’s intention to extend gambling across the country. If made law, the Gaming Authority will be permitted to issue more than a dozen types of gambling licenses to operators across Guyana. These include licenses for class A and class B casino operators; slot parlours for Route Gaming Machines; Electronic Bingo Halls; sports betting licenses and Junket Operators. One expressed objective of the Policy is the provision of adult entertainment for visitors.
The policy indicates that the government has held discussions with key faith leaders, social workers and the wider public. The proposals expressly grant individuals of Amerindian origin in designated hinterland regions the right to apply for electronic bingo halls licenses to provide Food/Beverage services and live entertainment. The Policy paper claims that it has been developed in line with the long-term vision of the government to diversify its economic base and promote employment.
Given the development path on which Guyana has embarked, the inevitable question is why a country with such richness of natural resources would identify the gambling sector as a priority area for diversification. Guyana is not Macau or Nevada or Singapore or The Bahamas which are forced to rely on such schemes to raise revenue.
Gambling can have both social and adverse economic consequences. The potential for money laundering is huge and is known to occur in the casinos. But to take it to this new proposed level multiplies that potential several times. Already our communities suffer from low income which gambling will aggravate. Gambling is no social pastime or entertainment. It is addictive and known to cause metal health and domestic problems, and even suicide.
It is impossible to remove the downside from gambling but even mitigation will have its costs. Gambling facilities must be regulated by the FIU and persons from the Gaming Authority, while the Police will be left to deal with the crime consequences of gambling. And of course, society will be left to pick up all the negative social consequences.
The budget speech was silent on this policy paper, and one must now wonder whether this is a big joke. If not, the Government and the Gaming Authority have some explaining to do.
