Inside Asian Gaming

Editorial Inside Asian Gaming is published by Must Read Publications Ltd 8J Ed. Comercial Si Toi 619 Avenida da Praia Grande Macau Tel: (853) 2832 9980 For subscription enquiries, please email subs@asgam.com For advertising enquiries, please email ads@asgam.com or call: (853) 6680 9419 www.asgam.com Inside Asian Gaming is an official media partner of: http://www.gamingstandards.com Publisher Kareem Jalal Director João Costeira Varela Editor Michael Grimes Business Development Manager José Ho Contributors Desmond Lam, Steve Karoul I. Nelson Rose, Richard Marcus James Rutherford James J. Hodl, Jack Regan William R. Eadington Graphic Designer Brenda Chao Photography Ike Michael Grimes We crave your feedback. Please email your comments tomichael@asgam.com Shining Example “Electric light is the most efficient policeman,” United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote nearly a century ago referring to the benefits of transparency in business and public life. It would be easy for Asian readers of this magazine to dismiss the thought as just another piece of Western hypocrisy. Transparency is fine when it’s working in Westerners’ favour—for example when Macau and Singapore gaming licences are opened up to public tender. But it’s not so welcome when Western governments start inquiring into the details of how their companies do business overseas. Surely the reality is that East and West have things to learn from each other. An example of West to East knowledge transfer is casino regulation. As David G. Schwartz wrote in Global Gaming Business magazine this month, Nevada effectively wrote the book not only on casino game rules but also introduced groundbreaking transparency on the inner workings of the industry, though Australian regulators would probably point out they also had a significant role in developing international standards. Nevada’s major contribution was to publish breakdowns on gaming revenue by game and detailed visitor profiles including age and socio-economic group. That information is even more detailed than the table/slot and balance sheet numbers and customer tallies published by the publicly-listed gaming operators. Macau’s gaming regulator and government have both followed Nevada’s lead in using that transparent approach, issuing monthly press releases detailing revenue and visitor growth. (It generally has been growth, rather than stasis or contraction.) Macau also issues quarterly figures giving revenue breakdown by game and details on visitors by origin. Singapore has opted for a less transparent approach for its casino industry’s revenue. Neither the Casino Regulatory Authority nor the Singapore government publish figures on gaming revenue. Only basic data is available via the stock exchange filings of the two operators, Las Vegas Sands Corp and Genting Singapore. We can’t speculate as to why Singapore has chosen this course. We do know, however, that more than a year after launch there is still political and public opposition to casino gaming in that city-state. It’s also interesting to note that Singapore has no problem publishing the ‘good news’ story of record year on year growth in Singapore visitor numbers, even if it leaves it to others to ascribe that growth to casinos. Singapore is, though, ahead of Macau in another important aspect of what we might call the ‘transparency curve’ when it comes to gaming regulation. This is in Singapore’s publication of regulations covering electronic table games and slot games. They allow industry suppliers to know exactly where they stand in terms of what functions, pay outs and features are permissible on products seeking entry to the Singapore market. In Macau, the situation is less clear. Regulations covering electronic tables and slots were drafted in Macau at least three years ago, but not published. That omission may have come back to haunt Macau in the current controversy over sic bo rules as discussed in our story ‘The Battle of Big and Small’ this month. On the surface the row might look arcane and only relevant to the equipment manufacturers in the industry. Arguably, however, it speaks to the wider issue of transparency. Not only are public servants called on to make wise decisions, but they must be seen to be wise—by laying open to public scrutiny the method by which they were formulated. More transparency on that score could actually help to build a better Macau gaming industry for the benefit of Macau’s people, its players, its casino operators and equipment manufacturers.