A deficit of trust

Mon, Sep 15th 2014, 12:03 PM

When it comes to the gambling issue, both the governing Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the opposition Free National Movement (FNM) have proven to be disingenuous.
Oftentimes, it appears their statements on the subject are motivated more by what is politically expedient than what is in the country's best interest.
During debate on the Gaming Bill in the House of Assembly last Wednesday, Minister of Tourism Obie Wilchcombe, who has responsibility for gaming, branded Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis the "undisputed flip-flop" champion based on his changing views on gambling.
True, Minnis has earned a reputation as a flip-flopper, as we have pointed to many times.
Back in 2012, he told us he supported the regulation and taxation of numbers houses.
"You cannot have an illegal event continue within a country," Minnis said.
"What message are you sending out to the public? What message are you sending out when you cannot control systems or institutions within your country? But we will watch and monitor to ensure that we have proper regulations, and to ensure that the people benefit."
Later, he took a position against regulating web shops.
While Minnis has wavered on this issue and others -- most recently the gender equality bills -- the ultimate flip-flopping champion in the gambling scenario has to be the Christie administration.
After an ill-advised referendum in January 2013, which wasted well over $1 million of precious taxpayer dollars, the government went back on its word to abide by the results of that poll.
Wilchcombe nor any other member of the Christie administration can speak with moral authority in criticizing Minnis for his changing positions on the gambling issue.
We have long known that Minnis struggles to take a position and stick to it. That is one of the more obvious traits of his leadership style.
While Wilchcombe was busy throwing punches at Minnis over his flip-flopping, he should have been reminded that the excuse the government repeatedly gave for ignoring the referendum results is an unreasonable one.
Wilchcombe recently acknowledged that the government owes the Bahamian people an apology for its decision to go against the referendum results, but he insisted that money laundering concerns overrode the original commitment to honor the outcome of the vote.
"...When the Central Bank raises a red flag and says a problem is developing, we have to, because of our financial services sector being in jeopardy [and] facing difficulties, then we had to make a decision and the best decision was to regulate [the sector]," he said.
Similarly, Prime Minister Perry Christie said during the budget debate in June that his views on this issue "evolved in light of a new appreciation of the dangers we face from continuing to have an unregulated web shop industry that is not susceptible to sustained law enforcement under the law as it stands today and which, moreover still, is not paying its fair share of taxes".
But in this space on June 30, we reminded that the Christie administration was always aware and seemingly concerned about the money laundering issue.
In Parliament in November 2012, ahead of the gambling referendum, Christie said in a communication, "The web shop operators are unable to secure bank accounts for their businesses as they do not satisfy the relevant anti-money laundering rules.
"There are concerns regarding the way in which the cash generated from the business is legitimized. The web shops are used to facilitate the transmission of funds between individuals resident on different islands in direct contravention of the relevant banking and anti-money laundering rules."
Christie also noted in 2012: "Continued operation of the web shops in the manner outlined leaves The Bahamas exposed to international scrutiny and sanctions for failure to implement anti-money laundering rules. This position is not acceptable and needs to be addressed without further delay. It has been ignored for too long."
Continuing the Central Bank narrative, Minister for the Environment Kenred Dorsett also hit out at the opposition for its decision to vote against the Gaming Bill.
"While the opposition decides what side of history they will like to be on, this PLP government is moving this country forward," Dorsett declared during debate on the Gaming Bill last week.
The money laundering explanation is a convenient excuse, but it is clear that the government knew long before the referendum that this was a serious matter that could threaten the integrity of our financial system and our country's reputation.
Speaking of the government's explanation and arguments on this issue, prominent pastor Lyall Bethel noted on the Guardian Radio show "Morning Blend" on Friday, "It is disingenuous and insincere".
"If you are smart enough, you can see through them," Bethel said of the government's arguments. "They're like gossamer paper that you can see through and tear easily."
In his contribution to debate on the Gaming Bill last Thursday night, the controversial Fort Charlotte MP Dr. Andre Rollins said the government's explanation on why it changed its mind "has no merit".
On the gambling issue, he said the government is suffering from a deficit of trust.
Rollins pointed out that in 2006, the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, released by the U.S. Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, said there were more than 10 Internet gaming sites based in The Bahamas, although none were licensed by Bahamian authorities.
At the time, Wilchcombe said the government "was acutely aware" of the risks associated with these operations and was trying to find ways to deal with the situation.
Rollins told the House, "We didn't need the Central Bank governor to tell us we had a problem. We knew it. We knew all along.
"The fact remains, we took so long, both FNM governments and PLP governments, to do anything about it."
While the government is busy criticizing the opposition on this issue, it has also been found wanting in its handling of the matter.
Though failing to declare a "horse in the race", its desire for a "yes" vote in the 2013 referendum was clear to many.
When it did not get that "yes" vote, it needed an excuse to explain away why it could not accept the results of the referendum.
The government is now doing what it clearly wanted to do all along: regulate and tax the web shops.
The government of Prime Minister Christie is now left to pay the political price of bad decision making.
It is best that it focuses now on effecting the smooth transition to a regulated industry, rather than pointing fingers at the opposition.
Its shameless use of the name of the Central Bank governor in this matter is something many observers can see through.
What the gambling debate exposed more than anything else is that both sides of the political divide are content with feeding the electorate foolish, bombastic rhetoric that does nothing to build trust.
On this issue, it is evident that credibility has long been lost.
Opposition
While some in the opposition would wish us to forget the moves the Ingraham administration made toward regulating web shops, this is difficult to do.
We previously reported that, in April 2010, police warned of the dangers of an unregulated sector.
That report to then Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said intelligence received showed "the number racketeering business is lucrative business".
"It is growing by leaps and bounds and at an alarming rate," the report said. "The Central Intelligence Bureau strongly recommends that a full investigation be conducted to ascertain how it is possible for the Business Licence Department to issue legitimate business licenses for vendors to operate these illegal businesses without hindrance or intervention from the ministry/department."
It is unclear whether such an investigation ever took place.
In one of the more laughable statements of the Gaming Bill debate in the House last week, former Works Minister Neko Grant claimed that under the FNM administration, the intent of web shops was to "provide computers and access to the Internet for persons who for one reason or the other, did not have computers in their homes".
Grant said, "This was a legal business that received business licenses under the FNM administration. They were subsequently turned into full-fledged illegal gambling houses, as well as unauthorized banking entities.
"The fact that one has filed a false declaration for years as it relates to a business license should disqualify them from obtaining a gaming house license."
Does Neko Grant really expect intelligent Bahamians to believe the Ingraham administration did not know that the operations it was granting business licenses to were, in fact, conducting illegal numbers operations?
Does he not know that the Ingraham administration, of which he was a part, had in fact initiated a two-way dialogue with the numbers operators with a view to developing a mutually-agreed model for the numbers business?
Or does he really expect sensible people to buy that the government's aim in issuing business licenses to web shops was simply to encourage computer literacy?
We previously documented the efforts the former administration made toward regulating these web shops, before pulling back under pressure from the church.
We also wonder whether Grant would have made his personal views against gambling known had the then government continued efforts to regulate web shops, or had it been re-elected and pursued the issue as it committed to doing.
Grant, who was a minister in the Ingraham government, now tells us, "The social cost in terms of dysfunctional families, addiction, increased crime and poor working habits is greater than the benefits to the Bahamian people."
It is sometimes hard for us to take our political leaders seriously.
On the matter of gaming, there are several examples that remind us that political expediency too often trumps the national good.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian

 Sponsored Ads