If there is to be a gambling referendum, it should address the big three: ...casino gambling, a national lottery and online gambling/web shops

Is The Gambling Referendum Worth The Time?

By NOELLE NICOLLS

Tribune Features Editor

nnicolls@tribunemedia.net

THE upcoming referendum is really yucking up my vexation. I join the chorus of Bahamians encouraging the government to put a proper referendum forward; one that is worth suffering the inconvenience of going out to vote. There is no shame in doing the right thing.

My concerns, however, do not echo some of the popular discourse. I for one believe some of the complaints represent plain ole “bad mind”: grudgfulness and hypocrisy. And I have no intention of perpetuating that.

If the government is going to put a question to the Bahamian people by way of a referendum, it has a responsibility to educate the Bahamian people about the question and the premises upon which it is based. It is completely inadequate for the government to say it is staying out of the fray. Gambling in the Bahamas is a complex issue and an uninformed public serves no one.

My first point explores the issue of web shops. There is a major point that seems to be eluding the government and many observers; Web shops in the Bahamas are licensed businesses. They are not illegal operations, even though they function within grey confines of the law.

Bahamians tend to make generalised statements about gambling being illegal. However, there is a big difference between something that is illegal (meaning, something that contravenes the regulations set out in a particular statue) and something that is simply unregulated. In reality, much of what web shops now do is not illegal: They are simply not regulated.

Those distinctions may seem meaningless as Bahamians discuss the matter over the airwaves. However, they are very real in the face of the law. The legal experts employed by web shops are well aware of this, and they use it to their advantage. Let us not forget, the attorney for one of the web shops was a former member of parliament.

These businesses are not fly by night operations. They are run by astute businessmen with sharp attorneys. To date I am not aware of any successful legal challenge which resulted in a web shop license being revoked or a web shop being closed. To the contrary, web shops continue to grow and expand.

I am no legal expert, but it is obvious that loopholes in the law have enabled web shops. The real crime is not the business acumen and legal prowess of gambling bosses, it is the shortsightedness and perhaps ineptness of subsequent governments in failing to get ahead of the industry, which is surprising considering the House of Assembly is riddled with lawyers.

On this point there has been zero accountability, and it has left the Bahamian public confused and uninformed about the issues. The Free National Movement (FNM) is grasping at straws to criticize the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) led government, but neither party has clean hands.

Government regulations have simply not kept pace with the evolution of the numbers business. The failures have created grey areas in the law that makes it near impossible to regulate the industry or prosecute its players. This is particularly true as it relates to the wire transmission of wagering information (online gambling).

Bahamians are still applying an old school way of thinking about numbers to an industry that has made quantum shifts. Long gone are the dice and paper days when underground gaming houses actually pulled numbers. The business model has changed.

Technology – specifically the advent of online gaming – has given gambling bosses the ultimate opportunity to step out of the shadows onto the frontlines having no regard for the Lotteries and Gaming Act.

Web shops are some of the most technologically advanced businesses in the Bahamas. They have invested millions in technology. They purchase world class software from the same providers who supply banks and other companies in the financial services industry. They use sophisticated systems that are elusive. The laws or law makers simply did not anticipate this sort of development.

A consumer can setup a charge account with a web shop and from the comfort of their own home gamble online. Without unjustifiable invasions of privacy on the part of the government, such a practice is impossible to prohibit.

A web shop can set up a computer lab and provide Internet access to its consumers and free itself of responsibility as to what its customers do online: write a business proposal, read soap opera news or gamble online.

Online gaming has become so popular with women that they now comprise the largest share of web shop customers, according to inside sources.

It has created a completely new and extremely profitable revenue stream for web shops.

The laws that govern the gaming industry are highly technical. When online gaming exploded, it made international regulators dizzy. Online gambling houses were able to exploit a host of loopholes and grey laws.

There is still a raging global debate about how and if to regulate or prohibit online gambling. Bahamian regulators are far behind on the learning curve.

Last week, Gaming Board Chairman Andre Rollins questioned the legality of bets being waged using lotteries from in the United States. He said the government would have to look into the practice if the referendum were to pass. This investigation should not take much time.

According to industry insiders, it is perfectly legal to use publicly broadcast US lottery numbers in the way they are currently being used locally. A Bahamian, who wages a bet on the Miami lotto, for example, is not buying into the Miami lottery. They are on betting they can guess the outcome of the Miami lottery. Third parties are not permitted to use the logos, slogans or trademarks of the originating lottery. The results, however, are public knowledge, and third parties are free to use these numbers how they see fit.

International sports bookies do a similar thing when they establish bets on various national sports associations, such as the National Basketball Association (NBA). International bookies cannot use NBA trademarks, but they do not need permission from the NBA to establish a bet around which team might win any particular game.

How does this relate to the referendum? For one, it complicates the matter highly, because the Prime Minister has said, should the people vote no, he will enforce the law and shut down web shops. That sounds good, but a government cannot arbitrarily shut down a business or revoke a business license. The business has to have committed an actionable offence. If the legal experts can effectively argue that existing statutes do not regulate the activities they engage in, then the government would have no legal basis to shut down web shops. They would have to enact new laws before they could touch the web shops.

Web shops are not going to roll over and disappear. They are going to fight. I do not say this having some special insider information. It is only logical. It is a million dollar business and the industry’s financiers are heavily invested. Alternatively they will return to the shadows or take their business outside the country.

Understanding all of this, I maintained the view from before the general election that a referendum on web shops made no sense. It was an unwise populist promise. I still hold this view. Anyone with eyes to see knows well that gambling is by and large embraced by Bahamians.

There are as many web shops in the Bahamas as there are churches and liquor stores. Perhaps the Bahamas Christian Council is jealous.

I heard Mario Moxey of the Bahamas Christian Council (BCC) making asinine arguments on the radio the other day about morality and gambling. Morality is irrelevant to the public policy question at hand.

I am not questioning the BCC’s right to spiritually advise its believers about the immorality of gambling. Christians have a right to hold the view that gambling is a sin. I do not believe they have the right to impose that view on others, or to insist public policy reflect that view. But I understand the church is desperately trying to be relevant.

Walk through the doors of a web shop on any given day at any given time: There will be people standing on line or sitting in front of the computers who do not agree with the BCC’s perspective. They do not see gambling as wrong. And it is their right to feel that way.

Gambling may very well be immoral within the Christian worldview, but is that really a basis on which the government should use public policy to prohibit all Bahamians. Is there a valid case that can be made against gambling that should not also apply to alcohol or tobacco consumption? Clearly not.

The government needs no permission to eliminate the grey areas which have enabled web shops to thrive. And the law as it stands empowers the government to grant exemptions for specific types of gambling, whether a church raffle or an internet gaming shop. It is largely because of the vocal opposition of the church and its political implications that the government has not and would not act. The PLP gambled that a referendum would provide the cover to act, one way or the other.

The government has tangled itself in a real web. Should the people vote no, the government will have an even bigger mess on its hands and the potential political fallout will be far worse that what currently exists.

The tide seems to be turning against the government and not for any reasons relating to how Bahamians actually feel about web shops or gambling. The perceived backtracking on the national lottery election promise and the lack of transparency around the government’s foreign consultants is pissing the public off. It has raised suspicion of kickbacks. The public seems ready to vote no, just to spite the government. If that happens, the referendum will have caused much more problems than it is worth: unnecessary problems at that.

I am undecided about going to cast my vote in the referendum; I feel it will be a waste of my time. The referendum addresses nothing of substance and there are no stakes in it for me. I am not a gambling enthusiast, although I have patronized web shops before. So I would suffer no great loss should web shops be closed down, but I would also take no offence if they remained open. So why should I go vote?

Casino Gambling

I would go out and vote for a constitutional worthy gambling question.

The government currently upholds a policy which allows non-Bahamians to gamble inside the Bahamas, while prohibiting Bahamians from being able to do so. Is such a policy discriminatory and/or unconstitutional and should it be upheld? These issues are referendum worthy.

The current casino policy is clearly discriminatory. It was instituted during a time when Bahamians were seen as irresponsible and incapable of handling the freedom to gamble. It was enacted by the government under pressure by the church lobby pedaling the same social mayhem theory as today. It was objectionable then and it is objectionable now.

There is no way a foreigner should have the right to engage in any activity in my country that I have no right to participate in. For me, there is no other argument.

A layman’s reading of the constitution, specifically Article 26, which deals with how the constitution defines discrimination, suggests that the existing casino policy is not unconstitutional. It seems the crafters of the constitution fashioned a specific clause (26.4e) to satisfy the church and casino lobby. (Thanks to Dr Ian Strachan for opening up the discussion on this issue).

The clause prohibits discrimination except where the law makes provision for “authorizing the granting of licenses or certificates permitting the conduct of a lottery, the keeping of a gaming house or the carrying on of gambling in any of its forms subject to conditions which impose upon persons who are citizens of The Bahamas disabilities or restriction to which other persons are not made subject.”

In essence, it seems the discriminatory practice existed prior to the drafting of the constitution, and this clause was included in the constitution to secure the status quo and to protect against any legal challenge to the establishment.

The clause does not, however, obligate or compel the government to support the policy, which quite clearly discriminates against Bahamians. It only provides legal cover to the government if it chooses to support such a policy.

Should the government support a policy that discriminates against Bahamians gambling in casinos? No. If the government wished to have a referendum to affirm the will of the people on this particular issue, it would certainly be a vote worth casting. Why? Because it affirms a basic yet fundamental principle of freedom and sovereignty.

The government would show real leadership by putting this question to rest.

If Bahamians had more access to gambling opportunities there are obviously risks, but the social mayhem theory being pedaled is a fantasy. The gaming industry should not be a free for all. There should be government regulation and protections put in place to address the social concerns. But history has shown the futility of prohibition and wisdom compels us to err on the side of freedom of choice.

I will discuss the national lottery issue in detail next time. For now, I will say the government’s actions have raised serious questions about transparency and due process. It makes no sense to start the argument with questionable evidence that concludes a national lottery is not feasible. A referendum is needed to establish the will of the people. If the Bahamian people desire a national lottery, then the government should undergo a rigorous and transparent process to create one. It has been done before in comparable jurisdictions and unless we are inept a national lottery can apply here.

There is obvious interest in a national lottery and the government’s actions fly in the face of the public. As I understand it, there may be a new announcement coming as early as today addressing the government’s position on this.

I will end where I started: There is no shame in doing the right thing. If there is to be a referendum it should at least address questions worth suffering the inconvenience of going out to vote. If there is to be a referendum, it should address the big three: casino gambling, a national lottery and online gambling/web shops. The government has kicked the bucket down the road for too long. Let us not waste anymore time.

November 12, 2012

Tribune242 

Caribbean Blog International

Constitutional reform - pt. 12... ...I therefore recommend that Article 23 of the constitution be amended to include a specific guarantee for freedom of the press ...in order to better protect the community’s interest in integrity in public administration ...through robust scrutiny by an independent press

Constitutional reform pt. 12

Freedom of expression

By Alfred Sears

In a democratic society there is no greater right than the right of citizens to know what the government is doing on their behalf, which includes the right to hold opinions, to receive and express ideas and information without interference.  The constitution guarantees our right to freely express ourselves by engaging in open political debate amongst ourselves as well as to engage in political discourse with our elected officials and with candidates who offer themselves for public office.

Article 23 of the constitution guarantees freedom of expression to every person in The Bahamas that provides that:

1. Except with his consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, and for the purpose of this article the said freedom includes freedom to hold opinions, to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his correspondence.

2. Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this article to the extent that the law in question makes provision –

(a) which is reasonably required –

(i) in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or

(ii) for the purpose of protecting the rights, reputations and freedom of other persons, preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of the courts, or regulating telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless, broadcasting, television, public exhibitions or public entertainment; or

(iii) which imposes restrictions upon persons holding office under the Crown or upon members of disciplined force, and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

This guarantee is meaningless unless there is reasonable access to the broadcast media and protection of the media.  Therefore, the issuance of private broadcast licenses in The Bahamas beginning around 1994 has allowed greater freedom of expression in The Bahamas.

The Court of Appeal of Belize in the Belize Broadcasting Authority v. Courtenay (1986) 38 WIR 79, dealing with a provision, identical to Article 23 of the Bahamian Constitution, under the Constitution of Belize, held that to broadcast on radio and television is “today an integral part of the freedom of expression and to place the need for the authority’s consent before one can do what is an integral part of the freedom constitutes a hindrance to that freedom.”  Access to the broadcast media is especially important in an archipelago, like The Bahamas, where people are scattered over many different islands separated by a wide expanse of water.

The Privy Council has held that fear of criticism cannot justify hindering the public access to the broadcast media and access to the broadcast media by political opponents.  In the case Hector v. Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda (1990) 2 All E. R. 103, per Lord Bridge, held that: “In a free democratic society it is almost too obvious to need stating that those who hold office in government and who are responsible for public administration must always be open to criticism.  Any attempt to stifle or fetter such criticism amounts to political censorship of the most insidious and objectionable kind.  At the same time it is no less obvious that the very purpose of criticism leveled at those who have the conduct of stewardship is to persuade the electorate that the opponents would make a better job of it than those presently holding office...”.

In the United States, the First Amendment of the constitution declares that the Congress shall not abridge the freedom of the press.  However, in the Constitution of The Bahamas, there is no specific mention of the press or the guarantee of press freedom.  In The Bahamas, the laws of defamation and a fear of offending a prime minister or other elected officials often places a restraint on robust investigative reporting on politically sensitive matters.  A number of journalists in The Bahamas have been prosecuted, sued or threatened with prosecution for criticizing aspects of the public administration in The Bahamas.  The community interests, integrity and honesty in public administration can be compromised when the people and the press do not enjoy absolute privilege to criticize public officials.  This privilege should include matters of public concern, public officials and candidates for public office.  As the United States Supreme Court stated, in the case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open and may well include vehement caustic and sometimes unpleasant sharp attacks on government and public officials, an occasional erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate.  Save and except in cases of malice, the press should be unfettered in its criticism and scrutiny of public administration in The Bahamas.

I therefore recommend that Article 23 of the constitution be amended to include a specific guarantee for freedom of the press in order to better protect the community’s interest in integrity in public administration through robust scrutiny by an independent press.

• Alfred Sears is an attorney, a former member of Parliament and a former attorney general of The Bahamas.

Nov 08, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Constitutional reform - pt. 11... ...The supreme law clause of the constitution should be strengthened in the following ways: ...(a) by granting to the courts the power to review legislation to ensure consistency with the constitution... ...(b) by conferring legal standing to citizens of The Bahamas, in their own interest ...or as part of an association or interest group ...to initiate a constitutional challenge with respect to the validity of any legislation that they consider to be inconsistent with the constitution

Constitutional reform - pt. 11... ...The supreme law clause of the constitution should be strengthened in the following ways: ...(a) by granting to the courts the power to review legislation to ensure consistency with the constitution... ...(b) by conferring legal standing to citizens of The Bahamas, in their own interest ...or as part of an association or interest group ...to initiate a constitutional challenge with respect to the validity of any legislation that they consider to be inconsistent with the constitution

Constitutional reform pt. 11

By ALFRED SEARS

Chapter one of the constitution states that the constitution is the supreme law of The Bahamas in the following terms: “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and, subject to the provision of this constitution, if any other law is inconsistent with this constitution, this constitution, shall prevail and the other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

In a political culture where the political directorate is perceived to be the highest law of the land, it is the constitution which is the supreme law and should any other law be inconsistent, that other law would be declared null and void and of no effect.  The prime minister, the Cabinet and Parliament are subject to the constitution and any executive action which contravenes a provision of the Constitution can be declared to be null and void and of no effect by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, through the power of judicial review, can examine any law passed by the Parliament or any action by the executive branch of government to determine whether it is consistent with the constitution.  If it were found that a law or an action by the executive branch is inconsistent with the constitution, the court can declare it unconstitutional and award a remedy to the aggrieved person.

A case

The supremacy of the constitution was dramatically affirmed in the case D’Arcy Ryan v. Attorney General (1977).  In this case, Ryan had applied to become a citizen of The Bahamas on October 24, 1974, pursuant to Article 5 of the constitution.  Ryan had been living in The Bahamas as his primary residence from 1947 and received belonger status in 1966.  He was married to a citizen of The Bahamas and all of his seven children of the marriage had been born in The Bahamas.  Ryan was informed on June 16, 1975 that the minister of home affairs had refused his application.  The minister gave no reason for his refusal of the application.  Ryan instituted legal proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that upon the true construction of the constitution he was entitled to be registered as a citizen of The Bahamas and that section seven of the Bahamas Nationality Act, 1973 and was ultra vires the constitution.  Two justices, sitting as a division of the Supreme Court, held that the purported decision of the minister was a nullity and referred the matter back to the minister to be reconsidered in accordance to law.  The attorney general appealed the decision of the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal.  The Court of Appeal held that section seven (a) – (e) of the Bahamas Nationality Act was not ultra vires, but that the proviso thereto was ultra vires the constitution, as it did not prescribe any ground on which the minister could base his refusal.  The Court of Appeal found that the minister’s refusal to grant Ryan’s application for citizenship was therefore a nullity.  The attorney general appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Privy Council.  Lord Diplock, writing for the Privy Council in 1979, held that: “Their Lordships accordingly propose humbly to advise Her Majesty that for the single declaration made by the Court of Appeal, the following declarations as to the several questions of law that have been raised by these proceedings should be made:

(1) A declaration that the minister’s decision of 28 May 1975 to refuse the plaintiff’s application dated 27 June 1974 for registration as a citizen of The Bahamas is null and void.

(2) A declaration that the final words of the proviso to section seven of The Bahamas Nationality Act, 1973, viz: ‘or if for any other sufficient reason of public policy he is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that the applicant should become a citizen of The Bahamas’ are inconsistent with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas and are void.

(3) A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to have his application for registration as a citizen of The Bahamas dated 27 June 1974 reconsidered by the minister according to law, as it has been stated in their lordships’ reasons for their humble advice to her majesty in this appeal.”

The Ryan case demonstrates that the court, if inconsistent with the constitution, can declare ministerial decisions, null and void.

Notwithstanding the clear direction by the Privy Council in 1979 that Ryan should be given Bahamian citizenship as a matter of constitutional entitlement, the government did not issue Ryan a Bahamian passport until 1993.  This case illustrates the need for citizens in a democratic society to be vigilant to ensure that the guarantees enshrined in the constitution are in fact observed by the state.

Recommendation

The supreme law clause of the constitution should be strengthened in the following ways:

(a) by granting to the courts the power to review legislation to ensure consistency with the constitution;

(b) by conferring legal standing to citizens of The Bahamas, in their own interest, or as part of an association or interest group, to initiate a constitutional challenge with respect to the validity of any legislation that they consider to be inconsistent with the constitution.

• Alfred Sears is an attorney, a former member of Parliament and a former attorney general of The Bahamas.

Nov 01, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Constitutional reform - pt. 10... ...The government should commission The College of the Bahamas and the Eugene Dupuch Law School to conduct a scientific study to determine the comparative deterrence between the death penalty and life imprisonment ...to inform public education and policy on the issue of the death penalty... ...

The Bahamas, being a no-direct-tax destination ...and dependent on indirect taxes ...needs to be aware of the consequences of higher taxes - says John Bain - Managing Partner of UHY Bain & Associates

Bahamas Warned Not To Increase Tax Burden

The Bahama Journal



A chartered accountant is warning the government to hold the line on indirect personal taxation as a study of 26 countries revealed what its authors called “the yawning gap” between the ability of high and low tax economies to attract and retain talent and investment.

The study, conducted by UHY, the international accounting and consultancy network with affiliates in 81 countries, says the broadening gap has been driven by struggling European economies raising taxes to plug gaps in budget deficits while emerging economies like BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia India, China) are attracting more professionals – and investment.

UHY warns that higher taxation is making European economies even less competitive relative to rival low tax economies.

Managing Partner of UHY Bain & Associates in The Bahamas office John Bain warned that while The Bahamas was not included in the year-long, 26-nation study – Bain & Associates was just named to the global network last month – the country would do well to heed the results that clearly showed populations and investment followed the path of attractive personal taxation.

“The Bahamas, being a no-direct-tax destination and dependent on indirect taxes, needs to be aware of the consequences of higher taxes,” said Mr. Bain.

“The population is highly taxed indirectly, which results in the burden of taxation being skewed unfavourably towards the poor and middle class. The Bahamas government has promised a revamping of its taxation system. As some of the residual income of some European countries is astounding, this report and the comments by the country partners should be considered at the discussion phase of taxation reform in The Bahamas.”

While The Bahamas has no direct income tax and prides itself on being a tax-neutral country free of estate, personal income, capital gains and other forms of taxation, Bain estimates that the indirect taxation from Customs duties and a cornucopia of fees amounts to between 30 per cent and 40 per cent, placing this nation in a precarious position for holding on to talent.

According to the six-page UHY release issued yesterday with details of the study, the average taxpayer in a BRIC country earning $25,000 a year will keep 85 per cent of their salary.

Someone earning $200,000 will keep 75 per cent.

Higher tax countries, including those in Western Europe, are taking upwards of 50 per cent of high income salaries.

Russia, with a flat tax rate of 13 per cent across the board, was the most consistently low-tax economy while Italy and France were in the highest taxing economies for every pay scale with France taking as much as 75 per cent of incomes over $1.3 million.

“The low tax economies, not all of which are developing economies, have been able to maintain or cut their tax rates over the past year,” said UHY Chairman Ladislav Hornan.

“Traditionally, the EU (European Union) has been able to offset the effect of high taxes by offering a wide range of public services. However, tax rises in some EU countries have come hand-in-hand with sweeping cuts to public services.”

Two of the countries imposing the five highest tax rises between 2011 and 2012 for those earning $200,000 or more were the US and France. Russia’s low flat tax rate means a taxpayer earning $250,000 will take home $80,000 more per year than a worker making the same amount in Italy.

“The first response to the impact of taxation on decision-making is concern about investment,” said Mr. Bain.

“But over the long run, the more significant impact may be a brain drain with taxation driving talented professionals, especially those who are relatively young and mobile, to jurisdictions with more appealing taxation translating into more attractive income. There is a tipping point in everything and we have to be very careful in The Bahamas to take results like this into account because increases in taxation that seem to provide a temporary breather can be a long-term threat to the very economy we are trying to build. Conversely, lowering the rate of taxation may be among the smartest moves we can make to retain talent and attract investment.”

Bain & Associates, forensic accountants, was named The Bahamas affiliate to UHY in October, joining independent firms that together represent 6,800 staff in 81 nations.

8 November, 2012

Jones Bahamas

Caribbean Blog International

...the Bahamian government has got its gaming policy wrong ...it should implement a National Lottery rather than look at legalising web shop operations (“personal rackets") - says international regulatory expert and mayor of Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago - Louis Lee Sing

Gaming Expert: Government Wrong To Legalise 'Rackets'

By NATARIO MCKENZIE

Tribune Business Reporter

nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net

An international regulatory expert yesterday said the Bahamian government had got its gaming policy wrong, arguing that it should implement a National Lottery rather than look at legalising web shop operations he described as “personal rackets”.

Louis Lee Sing, mayor of Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago’s capital, told Tribune Business that gaming must be operated or managed by the state, not left in the hands of a few select citizens.

Mr Lee Sing, a former chairman of Trinidad’s National Lottery Control Board, who was instrumental in helping to reform the gaming business in that country, was a presenter at yesterday’s session of the Bahamas Institute of Chartered Accountants (BICA) accountant’s week seminar.

Mr Lee Sing, who made it clear that he had no vested interest on the outcome of the December 3 referendum on whether or not to legalise web shop gaming, told Tribune Business: “The Trinidad and Tobago lottery has proven to be a success story.

“Between 2010 and 2012 it has generated roughly $5 billion T&T dollars. The highest contributing game to it is a number game we used to call Whe Whe, which we turned into a game we call Play Whe. All of this is online, and it provides the kind of transparency needed in something like gaming.

“Gaming in any society must be operated by the state. If it is not operated by the state it must be managed by the state, and so the question is not whether to regulate it but how to regulate, when to regulate and where to regulate.

“If you approach it from that perspective, the question really answers itself. In Trinidad and Tobago we have allowed the online games to grow, to prosper and it has given every Trinidadian the opportunity to participate without any hanky-panky, corruption or fraud.”

Mr Lee Sing further added: “What you have here, I suspect, is something different than we have in T&T. My fear is that you are about to legalise something that ought not to have been in the first place. People can’t be allowed to run their own rackets, as it were.

“I sense that the Government, rather than go the way of legalising the web operators, should be moving as it were to introduce a National Lottery.

Of course, the web operators could be a part of a national lottery because if they are taking bets now for other kinds of games, they would be permitted to take bets for the lottery by putting in a terminal, but they would not have ultimate control over the terminal."

“My argument is that the all the men who currently run web shops or internet cafes should be asked to continue running Internet cafes and, if they wish, they could apply for a lottery terminal and they would be playing by the rules of the state. They would not be able to do hanky panky and money laundering.”

The Christie administration’s consultants, Dixon, Wilson & Co, ruled out a National Lottery for the Bahamas on the grounds that there would not be enough interest, especially given the competition from Florida.

But Mr Lee Sing said that it was in the best interest of “countries, the people and economies” to legalise and regulate gaming.

“It’s important that the Government of the Bahamas take control of the lottery,” he said. “In taking control of the lottery the Government must ensure that people across the Bahamas are allowed to play the lottery simultaneously.

“If those fellows who are running these Internet cafes want to be a part of the dance, let them buy the ticket and come in. Let them buy a lottery terminal that can be placed in the cafes, so that they can have a chance to be a part of the process, but you cannot leave it in the hands of a few select citizens at the expense of everyone else.”

Outlining some of the benefits of legalised gaming, Mr Lee Sing said: “If you legalise gaming you are going to create employment and organise sustainable employment at varying levels.

“You would be making varying contributions to the state. You are going to be given an opportunity to do clearly defined good projects. You will ensure the collection of fees and taxes. You will ensure that there is transparency.”

November 07, 2012

Tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

...Bahamians should roundly defeat the upcoming referendum question on legalizing web shops

Vote no on referendum: PLP sells out the country

Front Porch

By Simon

On multiple grounds, Bahamians should roundly defeat the upcoming referendum question on legalizing web shops.  First, there is a stunning and insulting lack of transparency.

Moreover, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) that cried foul over a lack of process during the last referendum has been breathtakingly hypocritical and cynical in terms of the lack of process in its rush to give certain numbers houses an early Christmas gift.  This referendum involves both a perceived conflict of interest and a betrayal of the common good.

A part of the back-story of the PLP’s decision to hold a referendum solely on the question of legalizing the current criminal enterprise of selected web shops involves a bizarre statement recently made by Prime Minister Perry Christie.

When asked if his party accepted campaign donations from various illegal numbers houses for the recent general election, former prime minister and Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Hubert Ingraham said that while individual candidates may have, he did not accept such donations on behalf of the party.

By stunning contrast Christie said he didn’t know whether the PLP received donations from such illegal enterprises.  Bahamians will have to judge whether they find credible Christie and his stated ignorance on this matter.

 

Ignorance

What is incredible is that on a matter of which there is widespread suspicion of a conflict of interest by Christie and his party is that he has claimed ignorance on whether donations were received.

Imagine the British or Canadian prime minister claiming ignorance about potential donations from illegal sources in the run-up to a major vote in Parliament or a referendum.  He would be hounded by the press and perhaps hounded out of office.  But here in The Bahamas Christie is hiding behind a claim of ignorance.

The potential conflict of interest on the referendum question is as transparent as it appears massive.  This referendum is a defining moment in Christie’s legacy.  It spells the death-knell of the progressive spirit in the PLP, a party now fully in thrall to special interests and a self-serving oligarchy whose mantra is: PLPs first.

This is a shameful and disgraceful moment for the country, for the PLP and for Perry Christie, who will go down in Bahamian history for selling out the Bahamian people.

Are we to be treated to the same contempt for our intelligence and contempt for the national interest by Christie on the matter of oil drilling?  He has also failed to be transparent about his relationship with and the consulting fees he received from a company conducting oil drilling tests.

Having failed to expand constitutional rights for women in its last term, the first referendum held by the PLP, the party of corporatist interests, is one that will narrowly and overwhelmingly benefit special interests at the expense of a broader common good.

Women of The Bahamas be damned.  The question of legalizing windfall profits for illegal enterprises is more a priority for a referendum under the PLP than your rights.

 

Dictator

In its election charter, the PLP promised a referendum on a national lottery and gambling in general.  It has broken its promise citing a report by consultants which the Christie government has refused to make public.  If we have paid for this report, why can’t we see it?  This is the behavior of a dictator, not a democrat.

The message to the Bahamian people: Go to hell and drop dead.  Not only won’t we tell you what’s in the report.  We also don’t see a need to justify the limited nature of the question or why we changed our position.

In one of the most pathetic, insulting and dismissive statements ever made by a prime minister, Christie offered a litany of nonsense in his communication to the House on web shop gaming: “Firstly, I reiterate that my government and party will maintain a position of complete neutrality on the referendum question.  We will not campaign for or against either side to the question, nor will we offer any encouragement for either a yes vote or a no vote.  We are going to stay out of the fray and let the Bahamian people decide what they want without any cajoling or coaxing one way or the other.”

What utter hogwash!  How stunningly disingenuous!  By so narrowly defining what will be voted on and who may benefit, Christie’s PLP has dispensed with any pretense of neutrality.  And, then, he seeks to insult the intelligence of the Bahamian people by claiming neutrality.

There is the old joke of a wife looking through the keyhole of a hotel room, watching her husband and best friend disrobing and cooing at each other.  At the last minute before certain matters transpired, one of their undergarments is flung over the keyhole, so the wife never actually sees the deed done.  It is -- pun intended – a revealing story.

Christie’s non-transparent and pathetic statement continued: “I hasten to add, however, that not all existing web shops would be legalized.  Instead, it would only be those that are duly licensed in due course.”  Really?  Like whom, prime minister?  Anybody in particular, or might we take bets on who may be licensed?  Might you give us some examples?

Then there was this from the prime minister who is morphing from late-again to last minute: “The precise phraseology of the question that will be put to the electorate in the referendum will be announced well ahead of the referendum itself.”

Is this a joke?  Clearly, timeliness has never been one of Christie’s strengths.  Mere weeks before the referendum on a single question, and his administration can’t tell us the question.  And this from the party that criticized the FNM on process?

On the basis of process, and according to what the PLP self-servingly claimed at the last referendum, this question should be defeated.  The referendum has been rushed, the question is still not known mere weeks before the referendum, promised questions are left out, and there is insufficient time for well-organized and thorough forums for debate.

 

Obligation

More so, there is so much we don’t know in terms of the details of possible legislation, which the government has an obligation to address in greater detail before a referendum.  Christie and the PLP cannot be trusted on this front.

Christie also offered this false equivalence between how casinos and web shops should be taxed: “This would be in addition to the annual taxes that would be payable, based on the revenues of the licensed web shops, similar to the taxation structure that applies to casinos.”

He noted that the government expects between $15 million and $20 million in revenue from legalized numbers.  Yet, estimates from study of the industry by the Ministry of Finance prior to May 1, 2012, suggested in excess of $40 million annually.  Why have estimates seemingly been halved?

There are many other questions of public policy and social justice left unanswered by Christie, a number of which require urgent discussion prior to the referendum.  The debate has been joined by the general public, some churches and others, including the Democratic National Alliance, which released a clear position on the referendum.

Meanwhile and unfortunately, the opposition FNM has appeared bungling and inept.  Rashly and idiotically, Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis pledged to vote yes on a gambling referendum months ago, before a question to be put to the electorate has been framed and finalized.

One Lorraine Gibson defended Minnis’ statement as his personal view.  This is the kind of silly defense that might be made by a green pre-law student or a naïve political activist.  On questions of such moment and import it is best for any leader to make a statement on behalf of his party.

The FNM needs to get its act together and issue an intelligent, vigorous and consistent position on one of the most important issues before the Bahamian people during the current administration’s tenure.  The country cannot afford a feckless government and prime minister as well as a feckless opposition and leader of the opposition.

November 06, 2012

thenassauguardian

bahamapundit.com

frontporchguardian@gmail.com

The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) says:... ...Despite all the talk to the contrary by Prime Minister Perry Christie and his administration in the past few months... the recent announcement in the House of Assembly on the proposed “numbers” referendum is the clearest indication ...and saddest reminder to the Bahamian public yet ...that this administration is in the hands and pockets of the illegal numbers’ men... December 3, 2012 will be nothing more than payback day for services rendered

DNA Chairman Calls December 3^rd Referendum Christie Administration’s Attempt to “Payback” for Numbers’ Support

Despite all the talk to the contrary by Prime Minister Christie and his administration in the past few months, the recent announcement in the House of Assembly on the proposed “numbers” referendum is the clearest indication and saddest reminder to the Bahamian public yet that this administration is in the hands and pockets of the illegal numbers’ men. December 3^rd will be nothing more than payback day for services rendered.

To reasonably thinking Bahamians who are taking note of the vamped up public relations campaign now underway by Mr. Christie and the numbers’ businesses whose cause he seems to be championing, it is obvious that they are betting on the ignorance and desperation of poor, downtrodden black Bahamians to get their “snake oil” remedy for our pressing social ills made legal. It is the DNA’s hope that Bahamians will not buy what they are selling.

This administration gave the Bahamian people a “snake oil” sales job during the election campaign, and for what they have gotten thus far, Bahamians are now having buyer’s remorse. It would be a shame if they fall for the same old fool talk coming from this administration on this issue as well.

If the choice is ours and Bahamians are supposed to be considering the legalization of “gambling” in the country, a national lottery should also be put on the table next to these illegal numbers operations for consideration as well. It is ridiculous to think that the numbers racket can rake up money enough to be a financially successful operation here in the Bahamas but a national lottery cannot. If Bahamians were to fall for this, the DNA wonders what other kinds of crazy Houdini act and ponzi schemes they would be willing to have this Prime Minister and his administration run on them again.

If the government says it stands to make upwards of $20 million in taxes annually, then that would mean that the take home profits for these numbers businesses can potentially run somewhere in the vicinity of $200 to $350 million a year. How is $20 million more beneficial to social development than $200 million? And if these numbers’ businesses can generate those kinds of revenue, then why can’t the government with its own National Lottery for education, sports, and social programs? Why should the government have it hands out waiting for proceeds when it can make its own proceeds?

It does not make sense that the government should only be concerned with getting proceeds from taxes to take care of social programming when it could control all the proceeds by simply enacting a national lottery – if it is going to make chance gaming legal. Again, for the most part, it does not make sense, and the Bahamian people should demand their government take its time and make sense out of this seeming idiocy. 

This administration used taxpayers’ dollars to have their British consultants come here to tell us a national lottery will not work “at this time;” now Bahamian people should demand that the Prime Minister’s office release the whole report so that we can all see how this hired group arrived at their conclusion - because the math just does not add up. It is time that we not allow our choices to be limited based on someone else’s reporting, unless we are privy to the report and can verify it as such. So we are calling on the Prime Minister to make the report public.

In their times of hardship and woe, the Bahamian people are looking to their government to come up with real and lasting solutions to their social pains. They no longer want governments who use their bully pulpit to continually shove choices on them that have no meaningful impact on their lives and their upward mobility.

More importantly, they are growing wearisome of this administration as it continues attempting to make a mockery of the system, them, and their constitutional rights as citizens of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas. The DNA suggests that if this administration seriously cares about Bahamians it should demonstrate it by protecting their constitution right to free choice in their own country by offering them “free” choice.

If this Christie administration seeks to put to the Bahamian people any referendum on gambling that does not include a Bahamian’s right to gamble in the local casinos, any question that does not include a Bahamian National Lottery, as well as a question of whether they can own interest in chance gaming, then it continues to show its cowardice to do what is truly in the best interest of Bahamians. The DNA hopes that this second-chance Christie administration owns up and does bolster its reputation as a “sell-out/bought out” administration.

British physicist Stephen Hawking says that, as a people, “We are in danger of destroying ourselves by our greed and stupidity.” With each passing day leading to what has now gone from a proposed referendum on gambling to a referendum on legalizing the numbers business, we in the DNA hope that the Bahamian people will not become consumed – nor allow their government to have them become sufficiently consumed - by either greed or stupidity to prove Hawking’s theory correct. The future of a whole society is dependent on it.

We challenge Prime Minister Christie to reconsider his recent unashamed tactic to lead this cause for the legalization of the numbers business by playing on the nation’s emotional ignorance and fears of Bahamians. It not only comes across as unbecoming of a Prime Minister, but it also illuminates what most have come to fear - that this administration is indeed in bed with the persons who now run these illegal operations.
This administration can expect that, until such time as it puts to the Bahamian people a referendum that is reflective of real choice, it will continue to hear the DNA speak out and challenge them on this matter - right up to December 3^rd. 

Mark Humes
DNA Chairman

Tuesday November 06, 2012 - via e-mail

Caribbean Blog International