Inside Asian Gaming

IAG MAR 2020年3月 亞博匯 59 專欄 試 想想以下情景：澳門博彩總收入按年下跌 95%，酒店入住率下降至16%，28間酒店暫停 接待顧客，每日旅客人數下跌至歷史低位的 2600人次，而全澳41間賭場皆暫停營業。 若《亞博匯》執行編輯一個月前閱讀了這篇文 章，他一定會覺得這是不可思議的，並禁止我再為雜誌撰稿！不幸 的是，以上情景正是澳門過去一個月所面對的。 中國內地爆發新型冠狀病毒肺炎 (Covid-19)，嚴重地影響了 澳門博彩業，本澳正經歷新的社會及經濟局勢，特首賀一誠更要 求所有賭場從2020年2月5日起，暫停營業15日。 賀一誠在記者會上宣佈該重大舉措時稱：「這是困難的決定， 但我們唯一的目標是保障澳門居民的健康。」 雖然此決定並非前所未有，當局於2018年9月颱風山竹襲澳 時，因安全理由曾要求全澳所有賭場暫停營運33小時，但這次暫 停營業的時間長度是前所未聞的。 在澳門政府宣佈暫時關閉賭場前，內地當局已宣佈暫停向內 地人發出前往澳門的個人遊簽注，暫時仍未知道有關舉措何時解 封。另外，往來港澳的渡輪服務已全線停航，部分國家及地區亦對 澳門實施旅遊限制或禁止入境。 眾所周知，澳門博彩業十分依賴中國內地旅客市場，2019年 澳門接待了約3900萬名旅客，其中超過2750萬旅客來自內地。澳 門政府每年80%以上的財政收入來自博彩稅收和特許經營者的 其他納稅款項。 目前仍難以預料賭場停擺如何影響澳門的財政，但以下數據 或可作參考：據世界經濟論壇的資料顯示，2003年「沙士」爆發期 間，全球經濟損失逾500億美元，而2018年澳門賭場短暫停業期 間，澳門博彩總收入損失1.84億美元。 最新的預測指出，若短期局勢沒有重大的轉變，2020年第一 季度，澳門博彩總收入或按年下降50%。當然，現時所有的預測都 是純屬猜測，未來走向完全取決於兩大主要因素：賭場重開，以及 更重要的是，內地當局何時解封內地人赴澳的旅遊限制。 有一件顯而易見的事是，目前的局勢暴露了澳門經濟的脆弱 性，以及澳門博彩業過度依賴實體賭場，後者更是人們長期熱議 的議題。 澳門應如何應對 澳門現時應如何應對？所有行業持份者深知澳門正推動經濟 適度多元，令澳門從以博彩業為主的城市，發展成旅遊休閒中心， outbreak caused more than US$50 billion of damage to the global economy according to the World Economic Forum, while the brief 2018 closure cost Macau an estimated US$184 million in revenue. Recent forecasts suggest Macau’s GGR for the first quarter of 2020 might decrease by up to 50% year-on- year, there being no great expectation of a significant turnaround in the near term. All estimations as of this stage are wild guesses and completely dependent on two major variables, the re-opening of the casinos and, most importantly, the lifting of travel restrictions imposed on mainland citizens. One thing is certain: this new reality has exposed the frailty of Macau’s economy and its long-discussed overreliance on the brick-and-mortar gaming industry. WHAT SHOULD MACAU DO? What should Macau do now? All stakeholders within the industry are well aware of the efforts to push forward economic diversification aimed at steadily shifting Macau’s focus from a gaming centric city to a tourism centric one (focusing on MICE, Entertainment, F&B). At the same time, other alternatives are being explored (financial services hub, platform for the Portuguese speaking countries, Greater Bay Area integration). Such efforts should be praised because they are indeed the way forward. However, a tourism driven economy is still, by definition, one that is reliant on people coming toMacau. It is, therefore, still exposed to disruptive factors that prevent or disincentivize travelling. As to the other alternatives, their outcomes are uncertain, and it will take time (and money) to see them through. Let’s face it, Macau is a gaming market and gaming will continue to be its economic engine, hopefully with a lower degree of dependency. Given Macau’s reality, and despite the non-gaming efforts that should continue and be incentivized, Macau authorities could also consider, as a complement (and not as an alternative), diversification within gaming. It may therefore be time to consider the possibility of allowing online gaming operations in Macau.