Thursday Sep 19, 2024
Thursday Sep 19, 2024
Thursday, 5 February 2015 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
As you will note from the above, the space for gaming is a mere 3% of the total project. In this light, can the Waterfront Project be termed as a casino-centric project? Is it not obvious that it is very different from the other two??
I believe that the Waterfront Project does not own a Casino License. It has only provided space for a casino license holder, operating under the requisite regulations of the day, to operate from.
It is public knowledge that Waterfront did not seek, nor did it accept and nor did it receive tax concessions on the gaming component of the project. From what I gather, it has been Waterfront’s intention at all times to compel the gaming operator renting its premises to pay full gaming taxes and also take full responsibility for the fit-out and equipping of the gaming component at the operator’s own cost without enjoying the duty free concessions given to the master project.
On the other hand, it is reliably known that the other two projects sought tax free status for the entirety of their projects. Again, the difference is stark and should have been a reason for a differentiated approach.
The objective of this article is not to debate the morality of gaming and gambling. If the prohibition of casino operations in the named projects is a part of a morality crusade and a step towards the cleansing of a gambling and gaming culture then one has to question the continued existence of bookies, bucket shops, card centres and the current casino operations.
Confused philosophy
To simply disallow gaming activities and even disallow the renting of space to an existing casino operator, in an approved Strategic Development Project, under this double standard scenario smells of discrimination and a confused philosophy.
Sri Lanka requires a game-changer in elevating its tourist industry to be on par with the best in the world and, in particular, with the best in the region. The economic advantages of gaming need no elaboration and in any case are not the objective of this article and therefore I will stick to the script.
In closing, the new Government must attach high importance to honouring Parliament-approved projects, the basis on which investments have been made and work has commenced.
The danger of an incoming Government changing Parliament-approved agreements of previous governments is obvious and will surely lead to a state of investment paralysis and an erosion of overall investor confidence. Do we think before we leap or is everything a matter of political expedience?
Take another example of shooting from the hip:- While the Government has to be applauded for the measures taken in its Interim Budget to alleviate the cost of living of the common man, statements made in the Budget, when referring to the imposition of Super Gains Tax, such as: “we have observed that there are very few companies/businesses in Sri Lanka which have earned super normal profits during the last several years with the undue patronage of the previous regime at the expense of the development of many other companies/businesses in the country,” and, “This will help reverse the ill-gotten gains of these companies back to the general public.”
These statements are very derogatory of the many corporates who conduct their business in an ethical and transparent manner. To suggest that any corporate which recorded a profit of Rs. 2 billion or above has done so because with ill-gotten gains is a severe indictment on the many honourable directors who serve on the boards of the subject companies.
Furthermore, how can Super Tax be defined on the basis of one absolute figure. For it to be called “Super”, it must exceed a threshold indicator such as a “return on shareholder funds” or a “return on capital employed” et cetera. It is amazing that such thoughts have been allowed to stay in a National Budget. What is the thrust underlying such statements?
Similarly, the banding of the Waterfront Project with the Lake Leisure and Queensbury projects is an action made in haste, with little thought, and needs to be urgently reviewed and reversed.
The need for the new Government to move fast is appreciated. However, if the new Government does not think before it leaps, the intended good will be negated by devastating long-term effects.
