If Sports Toto has 3 draws per week / 6 bet types ( 4,5,6D and 3 types Jackpot draws) ie 18 bets per week, in what way is this less “addictive and destructive to healthy lifestyles” than Sports Betting for it to be allowed under the Local Government Act Section 101(v) of Penang where Sports betting is not?

What about the many “licensed” slot machines in the many clubs owned by “you know whose brother” whose draws and bets are continuous and repetitive every night and day as long as gaming establishment is opened and customers are lured to put in money for bets?

Why are these not similarly opposed against and banned under the Local Government Act Section 101(v) ?

No doubt, LGE’s stance against Sports betting is 100% defensible if based solely on political expedience and pragmatism as mentioned by ENDANGERED HORNBILL in 2nd last para of his posting #22. Most pertinent is the unstated reason of DAP’s need to show solidarity with DAP’s partners PKR & PAS, which being more Malay based than DAP, are desirous of leveraging the religious card (against gambling) to canvass for Malay votes of their contitutencies, with the next GE in view.

However if one sets political expedience and pragmatism and talks strictly of “principle” only thats where LGE’s decision becomes “controversial”.

For in advocating a ban, there can only, in principle, exist two approaches: one is either taking the religious/moralistic/theocratic stand OR the secular stand. PAS definitely takes the first approach ie gambling should be banned because its haram per se.

Secular approach is different. It is based on Jeremy Bentham (John’s Start Mill’s father) theory of utilitarianism. By this, the State does not side any moral or religious view point; it is neutral; whether it criminalises an act depends solely on harm to others, hence robbery theft and rape are criminal. When it comes to acts that harm no third party but only one ownself (& family) – such as alcohol/cigarette indulgences, driving with seat belts or not, and gambling – then whether to allow or ban the activity or allow some degree of it depends on weighing the “utility” value of allowing against prohibiting, in other words a decision based on economic/social cost & benefit analysis and SWOT analyses.

Hence in secular states one does not ban gambling per se but license its use. (This is so in US, UK and most Western countries claiming to be secular democratic where the democraaric right/civil liberty of an individual to choose between doing desirable/moral and immoral/undesirable activity is, for so long as it crosses NOT the line of inflicting harm on 3rd parties – is allowed and stoipped by criminal law. Even the paternal Nanny state of the “progressive” Red Dot (Singapore) down South has done the Cost/benefit/Swot analysis and weighing all advantages of reaping revenue from gambling which otherwise will be reaped by underground gambling or Genting over this side against social costs (mitigated by imposing a levy on its nationals so that only locals who could afford this vice would have access), it has come down in favour of Gambling by licensing its casinos.

So far LGE/DAP has not taken the PAS line that gambling is bad per se. Thi is evinced in his first Wesak Day statement – “the Penang state government IS NOT OPPOSED to betting or gaming outlets in Penang.” So LGE is assumed to take the secular line of weighing benefits against cost/SWOT analysis on issue of Sports betting and has drawn a “tipping point” at lig should be taken to be takes the “secular” approach, saying the line of what is permissible and what is “excessive” is somewhere at 12 draws or more – ref his statement “We are concerned at the excessively high number of draws -12 draws or special draws conducted weekly by the three gaming companies licensed by the BN government, which should be reduced.” What is controversial is whether there is factual basis/empirical evidence to support that threshold to ban Sports betting but not the prevailing Sports Toto, magnum & other slot machines still in his state when he indirectly denies he is banning it for political expedience to show solidarily with rest of partners relating malay votes since his ground for banning is different from at least PAS’s!

This issue is not that simple as it seems. If one takes secular approach and bans sports betting based on tipping point of 12 draws one has a hard time to explain why one permits slot machines of unlimited draws or Toto/Magnum of cumulative more draws! If one uses “lifestyle” argument to stop something like that, then the theoretical challenges are limitless. For examples: Ok you allow alcohol/smoking though its bad for heath (a secular reason) – then should you limit in Penang the sale of beers/whiskey to any one particular patron to not more than 4 glasses (since more than that its binge drinking, bad for heath and prone to accident inflicting economic/social costs)? Then why stop at drinks? What about Saturated fat consisting of triglycerides/saturated fatty acid radicals – the main dietary cause of high blood cholesterol – found in junk food/buffet especially in fried stuff like KFC that our children consume without restraint? Weighing social/economic costs and benefits should we curtail KFC’s advertisements as we do smoking advertisements? Then what about the video arcades in Selangor and Penang: though not gambling it is an addictive habit for our youngsters who are induced to play these games hours at end in some dinghy outlets exposing themselves to truancy and bad elements? Should we curb their Licences if these are surely not healthy lifestyle?

If one says none of these reasons really count – and that looking for consistency is pedantic – then what’s the real reason for the ban?

If the DAP/PR admits that it is actually to accommodate Malay voters wishes for pragmatic political reason to try win votes in next GE – and yet skewed on alternative secular basis of excessiveness based on number of draws – then there will arise legitimate concerns on part of DAP’s traditional supporters whether DAP is sacrificing its time honoured/tested principle of plural secularism and that its “Middle Malaysia” incorporate certain common shared norms with that of PAS’s Islamic State! If so the concern is that the way DAP compromises to its Malay based coalition partners requirements will also follow the very same routes of MCA and MIC within BN to submit to UMNO’s hegemony because of the political importance of the Malay vote. This is not to factor in the other angle that if Najib has relented to Mahathir’s point of view of licensing Sports Toto then it becomes ironical that the BN and Mahathir will, in that limited sense and outward appearances , look as if they uphold the “secular” principle and the principle of acknowledging non Malay rights to gambling better than DAP or Pakatan Rakyat. (I say “limited” and “outward appearances” because people also know the tune is such because a crony benefits from licensing).

One should look at the stand of Pakatan Rakyat (PR) secretariat coordinator Datuk Zaid Ibrahim.

His is subtly different. He does not reject Sports toto or any other gambling outright or excessive or bad lifestyles. That it is a bad habit/social vice is granted/assumed. Instead Zaid calls on PM to set up a Gaming Commission to REGULATE (meaning also to license) betting licences in an effort to curb the social fall-out from gambling. That means like S’pore stance, Zaid is calling for a secular Cost/benefit/Swot analysis of how to get the revenue from taxing gambling to finance other good national causes and mitigating the fall out of gambling at the same time.