Robert Buddan, Contributor
IN 1937 Norman Manley asked the manager of a banana multinational company to dedicate a portion from its sale of bananas to social improvement in Jamaica. This simple idea brought resounding success and untold numbers of Jamaicans have benefited for more than 67 years. This money started Jamaica Welfare, the first modern civil society movement in Jamaica, working through numerous organisations for social and economic improvement in the districts and villages across the island.
The Jamaica Welfare movement in turn transformed Government. When Manley won ministerial Government in 1953, and having won elections that year, his Government immediately made welfare a part of the state's responsibility by establishing the social welfare commission. This later became the Social Development Commission (SDC). It still continues to be one of the great social institutions of Jamaica, helping thousands of young people to develop themselves through economic, social and cultural activities.
APPLIED TO THE CASINO INDUSTRY
We could apply a similar idea to any casino industry we establish. The license, taxes and fees earned could be dedicated either directly to our social budget and the values and attitudes education/civic training programme; or be paid to the central budget to pare down debt and relieve the budget of funds that should then be dedicated in the same way.
By this route we can accomplish a number of objectives: making corporations responsible in development; easing our debt burden; ensuring that the social budget is protected and enhanced; and addressing the concerns of those who believe that a casino industry will only cause decay in social and moral values.
ALL CONCERNED
It is not just the church that has these concerns, as well, politicians . In 1997, the Prime Minister was against casino gambling and probably still has strong reservations. The Governor General, Sir Howard Cooke, is a deeply religious man and might share similar concerns. I have had my own reservations for years and I do not take part in any form of gambling. But the prime minister and cabinet are democratic enough to put the issue out for public discussion. To me, the casino industry can be good or bad for Jamaica (or any country) depending on how it is regulated and how the economic benefit is directed.
The religious community has yet to prove its case. Its objection seems based on old stereotypes of the industry and aside from moral condemnation, it has not shown how and through what regulatory failures the consequences it fears can arise. The Church must get down to specifics. When it enters the arena of economics and social development, it enters into a secular field that functions by research and planning, not faith and moralising.
The mood of Jamaicans is changing. A Jamaica Observer online poll shows that over 23,000 persons have responded to its question, "should the Government approve the introduction of casino gambling?"
A majority of 51 per cent said 'yes' and 46 per cent said 'no', with 2.7 per cent undecided. Jamaicans have taken positions on the issue. Very few people are undecided. I suspect the difference is between the moralisers and the economic realists. That difference might be settled by the question of regulation.
REGULATION
The matter of regulation is important. In 2003, the United States challenged Antigua/Barbuda's online casino industry. It sought to ban U.S. residents from betting on offshore/internet casinos which Antigua said violated free trade. The U.S. has tried to block financial transactions like use of credit card payments and financial investments in these operations by Americans under claims that it is blocking opportunities for money laundering, the channelling of money to terrorists, and that it was protecting children from gambling. But Antiguan Ambassador Ronald Sanders said the powerful Las Vegas lobby simply wanted to keep the casino business for itself. The tight relations between business lobbies and American congressmen led to a U.S. Act to target some 1,500 online sites in the Caribbean and Costa Rica but exempted all U.S.-based operations.
In March this year, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) threw out the challenge. A number of countries realised that this was a test case for the online gambling industry and countries from Asia, Central America, the European Union and Canada observed the ruling closely. Gambling or games of chance is a part of Jamaica's online industry too. According to one report in March 2002, the Jamaica Lottery Company then had "over 600 land-based online retailers selling over 1.8 million plays per week equalling over 508,000 weekly consumer visits".
Before we can know what regulations are possible and whether they will allow us to meet our objectives, we must research and plan. Ambassador Anthony Hylton supports the idea of a casino industry. As a former minister of foreign affairs and trade who has had to deal with many WTO issues, he is well experienced to oversee this kind of research.
We need to find out what rules of trade under the WTO regime would permit a developing country like Jamaica to regulate the industry the way we want to if we are to defend any challenge to those regulations. We might be able to seek an opinion from the WTO on this question as part of the preliminary work towards establishing a regulatory regime. At the same time, our debate and proposals should establish the parameters of the regulatory system we would accept.
In an article in January, I raised some of the regulatory issues. We would have to decide whether Jamaicans would be permitted to gamble or not; whether gambling will be atsea or onland; whether the gambling area will be zoned; what the size of bets and limits on winnings would be; whether the operator(s) will have a sunshine (probatory) period. The regulations can be restrictive or permissive but they should not be so restrictive that they defeat the purpose of realising sound economic benefits and they should not be so recklessly permissive as to cause such social and moral damage that would outweigh any benefits.
Of course, the regulations should be such as to make the enterprise attractive to any operator. For the economic benefits to be substantial, the operator will have to invest a significant amount. But importantly, we need to look at how the business operates and how well operators can satisfy our sensitivities. We must require that operations be of the highest professional standards and the operators are competent with proven experience and a track record of observing the law of the country and its regulatory regime.
DEMOCRACY
Government will have to prepare specific legislation for the industry or amend the Betting and Gaming Act. The powers of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Commission will have to address themselves to the industry's specific nature. Legislation and regulation will have to address concerns over possible money laundering
Voters in a parish might vote for casino gaming even if most voters in most other parishes vote against. For example, in 2002, voters in the state of Tennessee voted for a constitutional amendment to legalise 'charity gambling'. Since then over 80 charities have applied for licenses. If the people of Portland, Port Royal, Montego Bay, each with special claims to casino gambling, wish to initiate a local referendum through their parish councils and then obtain national legislation that meets local demands which addresses national concerns, then this would be a good test case for more direct democracy.
Religious and moral opinions have a right to be heard. They are important. Democracy gives a society an opportunity to do so and there is no reason why a local referendum, if it should come to that, could not be held so that the people of a particular region who would be most affected by the casino industry can decide.
Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. E-mail: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm
