According to a newspaper report , the government is reversing a decision to allow Ascot Sports Sdn Bhd to operate sports betting legally.

It seems that Ascot, a private company controlled by Berjaya Group head, Vincent Tan had received an approval from the Ministry of Finance in June last year for the 20-year concession to operate sports betting legally and had paid a RM25 million premium fee for such a licence.

At that time, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was the Finance Minister with Dr Jamaluddin Jarjis as his deputy.

The justification then appeared to be that gambling was very much part of the Asian culture. Football, too, had become an international industry beamed via cable and satellite television into Malaysian homes stirring widespread interest.

Not legalising betting would cost the government to lose hundreds of millions of ringgit in gaming tax and money to illegal bookies and foreign bookmakers - money that could otherwise have accrued to Treasury coffers.

It now appears that this argument is refuted. The government presently headed by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has reservations in re-issuing this licence. It would refund the RM25 million premium to Ascot.

It seems that Abdullah, who became prime minister on Oct 31 and assumed the Finance Ministry portfolio later, was informed of the letter of approval only this year.

The question that immediately arises is what is the reason for this present administration's about-turn in not re-issuing the license as committed by the previous adminstration?

For sure sports/football betting is big business estimated to top RM5 billion in Malaysia each year. If Ascot could capture at least half of these illegal gaming bets, it would contribute some RM250 million to government revenue in betting taxes.

Every entrepreneur of any ambition would vie for this plump licence. It is true that Vincent Tan already has his fair share of gaming licence, as for example that held by Berjaya Sports Toto, ultimately controlled by him.

Should other contenders be then given a chance?

Maybe there are contenders out there who could pay a higher premium than Vincent's RM25 million. Maybe they have better track record and experience overseas in running this legal football betting business.

Maybe these contenders can also provide extra benefits by promoting better the football industry in this country and the Football Association of Malaysia.

There are a lot of maybes. However from sources cited by the newspaper, the reluctance of the administration to allow Ascot to resume betting operations was more likely due to 'political and religious considerations'.

PAS, Keadilan and even newly released Anwar Ibrahim would question whether an Islamic administration ought to profit from taxes derived from haram activities i.e. gaming.

But the most important question raised by these developments and in everyone's mind is this - can the government change its commitment and policy every time there is a change in the helm of the administration?

People in the business community here and foreign investors will worry if a licence given by one administration can be revoked by the next due to a mere change of guard, and that premium for such licence paid be refunded.

Only public interest and policy can justify overriding this kind of agreement cast in stone by a large sum of premium having passed hands. If the licence to be issued is contrary to public interest and policy, then that ought to be the end of the matter. But is it really contrary to public interest? This is itself a debatable question.

If a licence for football gaming cannot be continued because it is contrary to public interest, why then is a casino licence allowed to be continued?

Different people may have different views. It however begs the question whether a government is entitled to different views at different times, that is to say, if a preceding administration took the view that it was not against public interest and policy, could the next administration determine that it is?