There is a famous scene from the satirical British sitcom Yes Prime Minister, in which formidable Permanent Secretary Sir Humphrey Appleby — a maestro of official obfuscation and manipulation — demonstrates to his naive younger colleague the dark art of certain, less reputable political pollsters. Establishing that the British public supports or opposes the reintroduction of National Service, he explains, is as simple as asking different sets of leading questions.

Sir Humphrey’s example underscores a universal truth in both politics and human relations generally. When asking a question, the response you will receive depends not only on what you ask but how you ask it.

The recently-tabled Gaming Referendum Bill is a stark case in point. This very short piece of legislation is the culmination of an important One Bermuda Alliance campaign promise from the last election, which will at last give Bermudians their say on the long-debated issue of casino gambling. To that limited extent, the bill is to be welcomed.

What is troubling, however, is how the Government proposes to ask the country for its decision. Section 3 of the bill provides for a referendum upon the following question: “Do you favour the introduction of regulated casino gaming for the purposes of creating new jobs and encouraging hotel development?”

The first half of that question is straightforward and entirely uncontroversial. The second half is immensely problematic.

The principal difficulty is that the question appears to assume what gaming proponents have yet to prove. In other words, although supporters of casino gambling regularly state their case in those terms, it is by no means established that economic gains will inevitably flow from the introduction of casinos. Indeed, the Bermuda sustainability advocacy group BEST has already made a compelling case to the contrary. Moreover, the likely economic consequences of any change to our gambling laws is certain to be the subject of ongoing debate in the months to come.

By presupposing the outcome of that debate, the Government’s proposed referendum question can only be described as “loaded”. There are also logical difficulties with the question as it is now formed. Do the “purposes” refer to the reasons one might vote in favour of the referendum? In that case, it seems to dissuade anyone who might have alternative reasons for supporting the measure, such as a gambling enthusiast wishing to pursue his hobby legally.

Surely the text of a referendum should not concern itself with the reasons one might support it or not. Or do the “purposes” describe the motivation of the Government in allowing this referendum to go ahead? This seems the more likely answer, but it is similarly unclear why that should be relevant to the referendum question.

In short, there seems little reason to include the second half of the proposed question except to encourage a “yes” vote. And that is where the problem lies.

It is of course no bad thing that the governing party should take a position on this matter. Yet the purpose of a referendum is to solicit from the public a decisive, yes-or-no decision on a proposed change to the law.

The question posed should, for that reason, be completely neutral. If not, the exercise becomes self-defeating and the Government ought simply to pursue their policy through the normal legislative channels instead.

This might seem like an unwarranted fuss for eleven words, especially when the result of a majority “yes” vote is clear enough, regardless of the purposes ascribed to it.

Nevertheless, words do matter, and all the more so when an important decision is at stake. It is to be hoped that the Government will realise the flaw in its loaded referendum question and make the appropriate amendment.