ANALYST: GAMING INDUSTRY ONLY BENEFITS BANKERS|帶動經濟?土地利益? 博弈牽涉複雜

發布時間: 更新時間:
For 25 years Taiwan has argued over whether the gambling industry should be legalised. In both 2009 and 2016 a referendum to legalise gambling in Penghu failed. In 2012 Mazu's local government held a referendum which passed, but is still languishing in the Legislative Yuan. It is debatable whether gambling can even help the economy or will it just add to even more land disputes. Singapore's first casino, for example, did contribute to economic growth for a year or two, but soon began to decline. It's an example worth Taiwan considering. Legalised gambling, now known as gaming, is seen as a way of adding to the economy on outlying islands, but the facts are debatable. In both 2009 and 2016 a referendum on legalising gambling failed on Penghu. Matsu passed one in 2012, but it is still lying in the Legislative Yuan and there is no investment in the project. Huang Chi-hsiang was born in Penghu. In 2009 he joined the anti gambling alliance on Penghu and is an ecology guide. He says, there are very few people who want the gambling industry in Penghu, it lacks the political environment and the investment needed for gambling is high, if investors want to get their money back, outlying islands are not an attractive proposition. ==HUANG CHI-HSIANG Penghu ecology guide== It's no use. However you do it, no-one is going to invest. The central government will not give approval. Anyone who really wanted to, would still find it impossible, it would be a wasted project. Mazu is right there as an example, you don't have to look far. Not happening. Those who support gaming, say that it brings revenues. However, a closer look at Singapore's example belies this. In 2011 Singapore opened its first casino and for one year after the opening, the government earned US$900 million in gaming tax, but Singaporeans lost at least US12 billion to the project, and the next year the both the GDP and casino's revenue began to decline, does Taiwan really want to risk this? == YE CHI-KUI Prof., NTHU Dept. Tourism Leisure Studies== Singapore didn't gain anything from its casino, in fact in almost all countries you can say that casinos don't bring clear benefits. The only people who benefit are the bankers who finance the projects, so you have to see where these bankers are from, if they are outside investors, then they are the only ones who benefit. Analysts say that among outlying islands like Penghu and Mazu, which would have to rely on outside investment, actually only Kinmen may be suitable for developing gaming and the key would not be the economy, but benefits from land value. == YE CHI-KUI Prof., NTHU Dept. Tourism Leisure Studies== If a small casino is built in Kinmen and for example, the game machine manufacturers already own the land, if they build it, they will earn a lot of interest. Analysts say there is a lot of dispute about a local gaming industry, there is no legislation for it and it brings certain social risks such as the sex industry and money laundering which cannot be ignored. TRANSLATED BY:CLARE LEAR 博弈產業能否引進並合法化,在台灣爭議超過25年,2009年和2016年澎湖博弈公投都沒通過,2012年馬祖就算通過國內第一個博弈公投,博弈法仍躺在國會。博弈真能帶來經濟成長嗎?還是有土地利益糾葛?學者以新加坡開放賭場為例,星國經濟成長只好了一兩年便開始走下坡,值得台灣深思。 博弈公投被離島視為翻轉經濟的萬靈丹,但真的是如此嗎?澎湖2009年和2016年兩度叩關博弈公投都被否決,馬祖則是2012年在博弈公投過關,但博弈法躺在立法院,外資也卻步。 黃啟翔出身澎湖,2009年投入澎湖反賭行動,現在是澎湖生態旅遊達人,他說,澎湖想引進博弈產業的人其實不多,一來政治環境不允許,二來博弈資本高,業者想回收,以離島條件來看,難上加難。 ==澎湖生態旅遊業者 黃啟翔== 就沒有用 你怎麼做不會有人來投資 然後中央也不會准許 就是我真心想做我也做不了 所以你做了還是等於白做 而且馬祖一個 血淋淋的例子就擺在那邊 你就是要做也做不了 然而支持博弈的人主張博弈帶來人潮,並搬出新加坡成功模式,但學者檢視,2011年星國開放賭場1年的全盛期,政府賺了9億美金博弈稅,但新加坡人卻輸給賭場至少12億,隔年GDP和賭場營收也開始走下坡,這樣台灣還想要嗎? ==東華大學觀光暨休閒遊憩學系教授 葉智魁== 實際上新加坡並沒有 從賭場裡面得到好處 其實全世界各國幾乎都可以說 沒有從賭場得到好處 從賭場得到好處就是莊家而已 是看莊家是哪裡的 只有投資客得到好處 有別馬祖澎湖得依賴外資,學者認為,金門是台灣前幾名富有縣市,要發展博弈,關鍵恐怕不是經濟,而是土地利益。 ==東華大學觀光暨休閒遊憩學系教授 葉智魁== 要是他是蓋小賭場 譬如說博弈機的製造廠商 他本身又有土地 如果他們蓋的話 他們是可以獲得很大的利益 學者指出,博弈產業在國內爭議性高,除了法規沒有進展,博弈背後伴隨的社會風險,包括色情和洗錢等問題,也不容忽視。 記者 李曉儒 吳嘉堡 台北報導