AL Plenary | Heated debate over casino full smoking ban

Macau’s tobacco taxes will be raised significantly to at least 70 percent of the products’ retail prices, as the Legislative Assembly (AL)’s plenary session passed an amendment to the consumption tax regulations yesterday. The AL also debated a draft bill to further control smoking in the city, while there was heated discussion on the proposal to implement a full smoking ban in casinos.
Although the first reading of the smoking ban wasn’t yet voted on during yesterday’s session, due to lack of time, many lawmakers stated their approval of the amendments in general but also stressed doubts over certain clauses and concerns over the bill’s impact.
Lawmaker Ng Kuok Cheong called the proposal “a belated decision that came in an inopportune time,” as “pushing for a full smoking ban in casinos during the industry downturn would cause resistance and anxieties.”
He suggested that the government “could have settled the matter in one go” in 2012 when the Regime for Smoking Prevention and Control was promulgated. “That was the most appropriate timing to fully ban smoking in casinos as the industry was on an upward streak,” he said.
The authorities have gradually implemented smoking control in casinos since 2013 with the exception of VIP gambling rooms and smoking lounges that were set up by the gaming operators to adapt to the regulations.
By contrast, Lawmaker Lei Cheng I showed support to the government’s proposal to implement a full smoking ban with no further delays.
“The casino workers have already waited and bared the hazard of smoking for three years in exchange for economic growth. With all workers’ right to a healthy working environment being backed by existing laws, the smoking ban’s exception is very unfair and harmful to them,” she criticized.
More lawmakers, such as Ho Ion Sang, Chui Sai Cheong and Si Ka Lon, also stated they would vote in favor of the bill’s first reading but called for caution and detailed analysis on its potential impact on the gaming industry in the second reading. “Smoking control should be gradually extended with a balance to the economic situation and dispelling citizens’ doubts,” suggested Chui.
Responding to lawmakers’ concerns over the bill’s impact on the local economy and employment, the Secretary for Social Affairs and Culture, Alexis Tam, stated “it’s precisely the time” to implement a full smoking ban as Macau needs to transform into a world tourism and leisure center.
“That emphasizes green tourism; a big selling point of green tourism is a smoking-free environment,” he said, adding that most tourists being surveyed don’t mind the implementation of a full smoking ban, whereas the government can also maintain visitor volume by exploring overseas markets and loosening the visa restrictions to more mainland cities.
The Secretary further suggested “an economic recession won’t lead to unemployment, as there is an exit mechanism for Macau’s 170,000 migrant workers. If the VIP gambling rooms really need to lay off more employees, the migrant workers would exit the market.”
Nevertheless, some law-
makers were still strongly opposed to tightening smoking control and levying higher tobacco taxes. Worrying the smoking ban in VIP rooms would drive away even more high-rollers, Zheng Anting stressed “this is a time to tide over the difficulties, not a time to pile on the pressure.”
Kou Hoi In, who voted against the tax increases, argued that those measures would squeeze tobacco retailers and create an incentive of huge profits for cigarette smuggling due to the double price difference with neighboring Zhuhai.
“It’s sending a message that Macau’s tobacconists should change profession. Even smoking in tobacco retail shops will be prohibited, it’s exterminating the sector,” he disputed. “It’s rather better to ban the importing of tobacco than going through all these troubles,” added lawmaker Cheung Lup Kwan.
Defending smokers’ “freedom of choosing their lifestyle,” lawmaker Fong Chi Keong declaimed “the government’s decision-making is based on what it thinks is not good but it shouldn’t force it onto citizens’ free choice.”
“You don’t smoke, so you don’t know the benefits of smoking. If there’s no benefits from smoking, no one would’ve done it,” argued the lawmaker, comparing smoking with drinking, gambling and clubbing. “Why are you so tolerant of drinking or clubbing late night but discriminating against smokers?” he questioned.
Fong called the secretary “too confident,” advising him that, “a principal official shouldn’t push for a policy decisively without giving room for negotiation. Without balancing different demands, your subjective opinion will backfire and draw laughter in society.”