A 60-member committee studying the pros and cons of legal casinos in Thailand reportedly has asked for more time to complete its research.
According to Inside Asian Gaming, committee members were initially given 120 days to compile the information and make recommendations, but have requested an additional four months to complete the process. Members are said to be at odds about potential restrictions on local players, said committee member Karit Pannaim of the Move Forward Party.
The second casino committee convened after Srettha Thavisin of the Pheu Thai Party was elected prime minister under a new coalition government last August. A prior committee recommended bringing integrated resorts (IRs) with gaming to up to five locations across the country, with Bangkok and the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) considered the most viable locations.
The previous proposal called for gaming floors to cover no more than 5 percent of total resort space, with the remainder devoted to non-gaming attractions such as five-star hotels, shopping malls, spas, amusement parks, zoos and indoor and outdoor sports stadiums—the so-called Singapore model.
“People on the committee are thinking of the big picture,” said Nualnoi Treerat, director of the Center for Gambling Studies at Chulalongkorn University, in comments to Channel News Asia. “They know the public might reject (casinos), so that’s why they’re talking about entertainment complexes like in Singapore,” home of two multibillion-dollar IRs, Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa.
Casino guests would have to be 21 years of age or older to gamble, and Thai locals would have to demonstrate financial assets of at least THB500,000 (US$15,000) for the most recent six months.
IRs with legal gaming are seen as one way to fight Thailand’s illegal casino industry; punters must now cross the borders to gamble legally. Cambodia’s casino industry, for example, relies mostly on Thai patrons.
Proponents of legal gaming also believe a regulated industry would increase tourism and keep gaming revenues at home, in government coffers. But Thanakorn Komkris of the nation’s Stop Gambling Foundation said that’s flawed logic.
“If we don’t want the people to spend money outside the country, the government should put pressure in every way possible to stop people from accessing (illegal gambling),” he said. “Legal gambling doesn’t decrease illegal gambling.”
CNA reports that the current committee, chaired by Thai Deputy Minister of Finance Julapun Amornvivat, has broad support among members of parliament, and has already attracted interest from industry players such as the Las Vegas Sands Corp., owner of Marina Bay Sands, as well as MGM Resorts International.
Critics are concerned that a land-based industry could open the door to online casinos. Treerat has cited public opposition to iGaming based on surveys conducted by the Center for Gambling Studies.
“That’s why there is a conflict,” she said. “There’s still a dilemma about this. Many people feel that online is just really, really dangerous—for them, for their kids and their family, because it’s close to them. And they can play anytime.”
Thanakorn agreed that iGaming could be “very dangerous. China has expressed its unhappiness with Cambodia and the Philippines’ legal online gambling multiple times, and are pressuring them to issue policies to control it. This is the last thing (the Thai government) should consider making legal.”
But the potential revenues and the general clamor for legal gaming options could make passage of a bill inevitable in the long run, said Karit Pannaim, a Move Forward Party MP and member of the study committee.
“If we have an entertainment complex, we will reduce the money that flows along the borders,” he said, but added, “I am worried about this a lot because everything has now moved from table to online. The world of gambling is all in the mobile phone.”
