Thailand ex-PM: Casino tourism plan risks addiction, crime surge.
Thailand stands at a crossroads, contemplating a policy shift with potentially profound consequences: the legalization of casinos. While the government frames the proposal as a boost to tourism, cloaking it in the euphemistic language of “integrated entertainment complexes,” former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva sees a slippery slope. His concerns, as detailed in a recent Bangkok Post interview, deserve careful consideration. This isn’t just about casinos; it’s a window into how policy choices, particularly those involving complex social and economic systems, can have far-reaching and often unintended effects.
Abhisit’s critique centers on a fundamental disconnect: the government’s purported rationale versus the actual policy design. While boosting tourism is the stated aim, the mandatory inclusion of casinos in these “entertainment complexes” suggests a different priority. If the goal were truly diversified entertainment, why require casinos? This raises questions about the true motivations behind the bill and whether vested interests are at play. After all, Thailand has been a popular tourist destination without casinos, and it’s hard to argue that their absence has been a significant deterrent.
The potential downsides, however, are numerous. Abhisit highlights the risks of increased gambling addiction, exacerbating existing societal problems of debt and crime, particularly in a context where the government is already engaged in unconditional cash handouts. This creates a dangerous feedback loop: provide cash with one hand, incentivize gambling with the other.
Furthermore, the experience of other nations, even those often lauded for their casino management like Singapore, suggests that mitigating the negative social consequences of gambling is a Herculean task, even for developed countries with robust regulatory frameworks. And the potential blowback from China, a major source of tourism revenue with a strong anti-gambling stance, adds another layer of complexity to the equation.
Here are some of the key concerns Abhisit raises:
- The mandatory inclusion of casinos in “entertainment complexes” belies the stated focus on tourism diversification.
- Increased gambling addiction will likely exacerbate existing societal problems of debt and crime.
- The potential for transnational crime and money laundering, already challenges for Thailand, will likely increase.
- The rushed nature of the bill and the lack of transparency raise concerns about vested interests and potential corruption.
“I cannot see what we could gain from (the new draft bill). I can only see the downside.”
This stark assessment from Abhisit underscores the need for a more thorough and nuanced cost-benefit analysis. The potential revenue from casinos must be weighed against the potential costs to society, not just in terms of addiction and crime, but also the erosion of public trust, the potential strain on social safety nets, and the risk of alienating key tourism partners. This is about more than just building casinos; it’s about shaping the future of Thailand. And rushing into a decision with such far-reaching consequences is a gamble the country can ill afford.
