| |
Today,
17 Nov 04
Gaming and WTO rules
by Lee Han Shih peccavi013@yahoo.com
S'pore could be forced to open up its gaming industry in the spirit
of free trade
If it has its way, the Government would like to open up the gaming
scene in Singapore one step at a time, at a pace totally under its
control. Unfortunately, the World Trade Organisation may have different
ideas. On Nov 10, a WTO panel ruled that the United States had engaged
in unfair trade practices in prohibiting its people from gambling
via the Internet with foreign casino operators. The panel also asked
the US to allow these operators to do business in America.
The ruling affirmed a preliminary decision in March favouring the
tiny two-island nation in the Caribbean, Antigua and Barbuda (a former
British colony with total population of 68,000 or half of that in
Toa Payoh). Antigua, which derives most of its income hosting dozens
of gambling outfits servicing mostly American citizens, took the US
to the WTO last year after the US Justice Department stopped it from
advertising in American newspapers, magazines and US-based portals
such as Yahoo! Antigua had claimed it lost more than US$90 million
($149 million) and 4,000 jobs because of the US ban.
Responding to the WTO verdict, the office of the US Trade Representative
said it would "vigorously" appeal the "deeply flawed" decision. The
case now goes to a seven-member WTO appeal panel and a decision could
be handed down in the first half of next year. Even if it loses the
appeal, the US is unlikely to open its market to foreign gambling
operators. As the world's only superpower, it can shrug off international
opinions that do not fit its agenda.
The WTO verdict has deep implications for its other 147 members, including
Singapore and Hong Kong. In a nutshell, the WTO is saying that the
US move is against the spirit of free trade for a country to engage
in some sort of domestic services and yet prevent foreigners from
offering the same services to its people. As pointed out by Sir Ronald
Sanders, Chief Foreign Affairs Representative of Antigua, the US "is
a huge market with a well-established culture for gambling in several
states as well as mega-casinos and betting operators which use the
Internet." Given that, the denial by the US to open its market of
Antigua-based gambling operators was "simply protectionism, nothing
more, nothing less".
So, where does Singapore stand in the WTO verdict? Like the US, Singapore
also has gaming operators (Singapore Pools and the Singapore Turf
Club) offering a wide variety of ways for punters to wager, from horses,
Toto, 4-D and Singapore Sweep to football, from local matches to those
in England and Europe, Champions League and World Cup matches. . As
such, Singapore could be expected, in the name of free trade, to open
its doors to foreign gambling operators. Yet, when British bookmakers
William Hill disclosed it had more than 4,500 registered online punters
from Singapore, the response from the Singapore Police was that it
was illegal for people here to place bets with William Hill. "There
are adequate outlets for punters to bet legally and members of the
public are advised to bet legally as the punishment for illegal betting
and gambling is heavy fine and imprisonment," said a police spokesman,
adding that the police "will exercise zero tolerance on all illegal
gambling activities".
So, Singaporeans are not allowed to bet online with a British bookmaker
on British and European soccer matches, but it is okay for them to
place the same bets on the FA Cup, the English Premier League, the
Italian Serie A, the Spanish Primera Liga and the German Bundesliga
through Singapore Pools' Strike betting system. Is it, to quote Sir
Ronald of Antigua, "simply protectionism, nothing more, nothing less"?
Singapore might argue that even if it is protectionism, opening up
the gambling market was not part of its agenda in joining the WTO.
It could take the stand that legalised gambling helps prevent Singaporeans
from engaging in uncontrolled and unrestricted gambling with unlicensed
operators, which often leads to bankruptcy and ruin. Morally, the
argument might make sense. However, the WTO would prefer to go by
the letter of the contract and not the unspoken intention behind it.
The US, in fact, used a similar argument with the WTO — that it had
never intended gambling to be part of the services to be liberalised.
It got nowhere. "We have some sympathy with the US' point in this
regard," the WTO panel wrote. "However, the scope of a specific commitment
cannot depend upon what a member intended or did not intend to do
at the time of the negotiations."
From the perspective of the WTO verdict, Singapore can be said to
have engaged in unfair trade practices in blocking out foreign gambling
operators. What would Singapore do if such an operator were to apply
for a licence here? Would it open its doors or continue to block its
entrance? The local authorities may opt to keep the block in place.
But they should bear in mind that Singapore was the host of the first
WTO Ministerial Conference in Dec 1996. At that conference, the WTO
ministers issued their declaration on free trade which included "progressive
liberalisation of trade in services and the rejection of all forms
of protectionism". . Singapore had proudly proclaimed then that "the
fact that this first Ministerial Conference of the WTO has been held
at Singapore is an additional manifestation of Singapore's commitment
to an open world trading system". It would be an irony if it could
not uphold that stand.
The writer is a freelance journalist. |
|
