The Bahamas is not the only nation concerned about gambling

The pros and cons of gambling
tribune242 editorial:


A SEVERE crackdown by Chinese police on football betting during the World Cup match after an online gambling ring -- called the world's largest-- was broken up in Hong Kong in June, shows that the Bahamas is not the only nation concerned about gambling.

According to the Xinhua news agency more than $100 million Hong Kong dollars was confiscated in June and 70 people arrested in betting on the World Cup.

In July as the police crackdown intensified on organised criminal gangs more than 5,000 people were arrested.

Although the East is noted -- at least in the movies -- for its gambling dens, betting on football is illegal in Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand because of its ties to the criminal underworld.

In a Financial Times article Jean-Michel Louboutin, Interpol's executive director of police services is quoted as saying: "As well as having clear connections to organised crime gangs, illegal soccer gambling is linked with corruption, money laundering and prostitution, and our operation will have a significant long-term impact on these serious offences as well."

In its July 10-16 edition, The Economist of London had an interesting feature on gambling and the pros and cons for legalising it.

It pointed out that trying to ban online gambling is doomed to failure because anyone with a computer can participate.

It concludes that although many dislike the idea of governments encouraging its citizens to gamble, a fine line can be drawn between encouragement and regulation. "Regulating something is not the same as encouraging it," the Economist argued.

"Better to treat gambling the same way as smoking: legalise it but make the casinos display the often-dismal odds of success (one in 176 million, if you hope to win America's richest lottery) in the same way the cigarette packets warn you about cancer.

"That would favour games of skill over the mindlessness of slot machines. People always will bet.

"Better that they do so in a legal market -- and know the form."

That was one opinion. We recall, while studying law in London, gambling was being discussed among the legal fraternity at the time.

A strong argument then was that it was best to bring it in from the cold and regulate it so that gambling debts could be settled in the courts rather than by criminals with knives drawn down a dark alley.

Those against gambling offered much the same argument as Archbishop Pinder and other churchmen in an attempt to protect citizens against their own destructive human weaknesses.

While the Catholic Church, said the Archbishop, recognizes that "gambling is not inherently evil there is the tendency of human nature to go to excess and to extremes.

"Thus what may be harmless in the beginning can, without proper restraints become quite harmful later on. The wisdom of the law as it now stands seems to understand this reality."

Many other countries in order to protect their citizens, either ban them from the casinos, or if allowed, charge them a heavy entrance fee.

A foreigner pays no fees. Mainland China, for example, keeps its casinos off island on Macau, where the visitor throws the dice, but access by its own citizens is strictly limited. A successful lottery is the only form of gambling on China's mainland.

Singapore welcomes the visitor to its casinos, but charges its own citizens $72. Many Asian governments remain wary of gambling and either ban its citizens, or make it difficult for them to have a little "flutter."

However, as governments need to raise taxes, the debate continues.

The Economist article is well worth reading, particularly as this is a debate that Bahamians will be entering into after the 2012 election.

It gives a balanced view of both sides of the argument.

July 22, 2010

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International