Majority of Thais (59%) Deny Support for Land-Based Casinos; Strong Opposition (69%) Towards Online Gambling in the Nation

Majority of Thais (59%) Deny Support for Land-Based Casinos; Strong Opposition (69%) Towards Online Gambling in the Nation

Gambling Legalization in Thailand: A Contentious Proposal

A recent survey by the National Institute of Development Administration reveals that the masses in Thailand aren't backing the government's endeavor to legalize both land-based casinos and online gambling. Unsurprisingly, 69% of participants rejected the idea of online gambling, while 59% expressed their disapproval for land-based casinos. A mere 29% supported both proposals.

But the survey didn't just stop there. It also probed the public's preference for a referendum on these controversial matters. Alas, 51% of respondents swore off the idea, suggesting that a public vote is unnecessary.

Government officials have been advocating for an expansion in gambling legislation to boost tourism and bolster the tax revenue. But people tend to nip across the borders to unwind at casinos in places like Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, and the Philippines instead.

Interestingly, back in January, the government had already given a green light to a draft bill that would've normalized online gambling and land-based facilities, substantially beefing up the existing framework, which only caters to lottery and horse racing betting.

The bill's proponents reckon that gambling taxes could rake in up to US$3 billion yearly. However, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has sounded a warning bell, cautioning lawmakers to be mindful of criminals who might exploit the online gaming sector for illicit activities.

Amidst these contentious debates, the bill's progress has been sluggish. The passage of the bill has been postponed until the next parliamentary session in early July, following a summer break. Meanwhile, the Senate has formed two subcommittees to scrutinize the bill's societal and economic implications, including the potential negative outcomes for social welfare and the economic repercussions of the proposed entertainment complexes.

To add fuel to the fire, a Thai Senate panel has urged the government to hold a public referendum before proceeding with the bill, owing to concerns about potential constitutional prerequisites.

While opposition to the bill has been widespread, demonstrations against the legislation have been met outside the parliament building in Bangkok. Critics argue that the government has pushed this bill through without adequate engagement with the public. Additionally, the Bhumjaithai Party, a coalition member, has voiced dissent against the bill, potentially stirring tensions within the government.

Overall, the bill's trajectory remains uncertain, given the public outcry and political tensions surrounding the issue. As for the UNODC's warnings, while they haven't been specific to Thailand's casino bill at this stage, one can't ignore the potential risks associated with illegal activities such as money laundering, organized crime, and other nefarious activities that tend to be associated with gambling operations.

1. The draft bill, already approved by the government in January, aims to normalize online gambling and land-based casinos, potentially reshaping the existing gambling framework that primarily caters to lottery and horse racing betting within the finance industry.
2. The passage of the fintech bill could potentially generate significant tax revenue, estimated to be up to US$3 billion annually, attracting attention from various casino personalities considering the prospects of boosting tourism and gambling trends in Thailand.
3. However, as the bill's progress remains uncertain, some experts express concern about the potential risks associated with cyber crime, money laundering, organized crime, and other nefarious activities in connection with the proposed gambling facilities, echoing the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's warning.
4. As responsible gambling advocates push for stricter regulations to prevent problem gambling, the government and Senate should carefully consider the societal and economic implications of the bill, particularly the potential negative outcomes for social welfare and the economic repercussions of the proposed entertainment complexes in the casino-and-gambling industry.

Read also: