The Thai government’s push for casino-entertainment complexes has sparked fresh opposition, with concerns that the move could significantly damage the credibility of the Pheu Thai-led administration.
Opposition groups have previously staged protests on various issues, including the alleged preferential treatment of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra at Police General Hospital and disputes over maritime claims in the Gulf of Thailand. While these protests were initially halted by a court order, activists resumed their demonstrations following reports that the cabinet was considering the Entertainment Complex Bill.
Although the cabinet deferred its decision, pending public feedback from the Ministry of Finance, protest groups have intensified their efforts, opposing both the casino project and broader gambling legalisation. They have vowed to continue their campaign until the proposal is abandoned.
Growing Opposition
Jatuporn Prompan, a former red-shirt leader, has stated that anti-government groups strongly oppose gambling legalisation, especially after Prime Minister’s Office Minister Chousak Sirinil called the bill an urgent issue.
One point of contention is the requirement that Thai citizens must have at least 50 million baht in their savings accounts for six months before they can access casinos. Deputy Finance Minister Julapun Amornvivat initially proposed an alternative, requiring proof of annual income tax payments for the past three years. However, after further review, the Finance Ministry reinstated the 50-million-baht savings rule, aligning with recommendations from the Council of State (CoS).
Jatuporn confirmed that protest groups plan to rally every Tuesday, coinciding with the cabinet meetings, until the government clarifies its position. He also suggested that political timing will be crucial, citing the downfall of the Yingluck Shinawatra administration, which faced backlash over an amnesty bill and a controversial rice-pledging scheme. He noted that the current administration is already dealing with economic struggles, including stock market instability and declining crop prices.
Public Backlash and Political Implications
Political analysts argue that while the casino issue alone may not topple the government, ignoring public sentiment could lead to significant political fallout. Some coalition parties remain sensitive to public opinion, and the project was never originally part of Pheu Thai’s policy platform—it only emerged in discussions tied to Thaksin’s broader economic vision for Thailand.
Jatuporn warned that forcing the issue into a cabinet meeting could spark wider opposition, further straining the government’s position.
Calls for a Referendum
Chittawan Chanagul, a gambling policy researcher at Kasetsart University, has urged the government to hold a public referendum on the casino proposal. Thanakorn Khomkrit, secretary-general of the Stop Gambling Foundation, reiterated that while his organisation opposes the bill, it has no political agenda and will focus on public awareness rather than joining protests aimed at toppling the government.
Opponents argue that the casino plan was not part of Pheu Thai’s election campaign nor formally submitted to the Election Commission, raising concerns over legitimacy. Civic groups, though differing on some issues, remain united in their opposition to the project.
Lingering Concerns and Potential Consequences
Despite attempts to regulate gambling access through financial requirements, critics argue that casinos would inevitably lead to a rise in online gambling, which remains a pressing concern. Jatuporn dismissed claims that casinos would boost tourism, warning that an increase in crime linked to gambling could deter visitors more than attract them.
Chittawan further criticised the project, stating that corruption and weak law enforcement would likely enable gambling operators and officials to exploit the system for personal gain. She pointed out that the CoS’s recommendation that all casino revenue be returned to the state does not necessarily prevent corruption, as regulatory loopholes could be exploited at the policy level.
A major point of concern is the licensing structure, which sets a maximum fee of 5 billion baht but lacks a specified minimum, raising fears that artificially low fees could lead to state revenue losses.
Regional Comparisons and Foreign Influence
Critics question whether the government can effectively restrict casino access to foreigners and a small group of wealthy Thais. Vietnam initially imposed similar restrictions but later allowed locals to gamble under certain conditions, demonstrating how policies can evolve over time.
Thanakorn also flagged a new provision in the bill allowing businesses to facilitate casino tourism, a move he believes could open the door to money laundering. His concerns grew after the recent cooperation announcement between Thailand’s national soft power committee and Melco Resorts & Entertainment, a Macau-based casino operator.
Melco, which has set up an office in Thailand, has expressed interest in investing in integrated resorts if the government legalises gambling. The company’s chairman, Lawrence Ho, is the son of the late Stanley Ho, who was previously reported to have connections to organised crime networks.
Uncertain Future
With debates continuing and protests mounting, the fate of the casino project remains unclear. If coalition parties align with the government and push the bill forward, public opposition could escalate into a broader movement, challenging Pheu Thai’s leadership. Observers warn that failing to address public concerns now could lead to significant political consequences down the road.
