The controversial Entertainment Complex Bill is no gamble. It's a high-stakes policy with lasting economic and social consequences, so the Pheu Thai-led government, which is sponsoring it, must ensure it is responsibly formulated and not rushed.
Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra's decision not to send the draft to the cabinet shows that the government remains willing to listen to opposing viewpoints.
Now, the government is trying to revise the draft law so it has enforceable guardrails to address the social impacts caused by casino and gambling addiction.
Last month, it removed a 50-million-baht requirement for Thais to enter casinos and replaced it with a requirement that they submit income tax returns for the past three years.
However, replacing it with a tax return requirement raised more questions than answers. What would three years of income tax return records prove? Would they ensure financial responsibility or merely serve as a means for the government to track gambling-related income for taxation?
The effectiveness of this measure was doubtful.
The government had said only about 10,000 Thais would meet the 50-million-baht entry requirement, and there were concerns that those who did not meet this would turn to alternative gambling options, including illegal operations.
But then, late last week, the 50-million-baht requirement was back in the bill, with the Finance Ministry apparently having second thoughts.
Although studies reveal a large number of Thais engage in gambling -- almost 60% of the population according to recent research -- and money circulated in underground gambling activities amounts to hundreds of billions of baht, efforts to legalise gambling or open casinos have long run into fierce resistance.
Opposition comes from those who object on moral grounds and those who worry about its darker social consequences.
Given that the Pheu Thai Party must be well aware of such sentiments, it is reasonable to expect the team working on the issue to thoroughly consider all aspects before drafting the bill.
Instead, the continued changes to the draft bill suggest a lack of firm direction and a weak grasp of the issue.
If the draft bill's purpose is to "regulate" the entertainment or casino business to meet international standards, attract foreign investment, and support sustainable tourism, then it truly needs a stringent framework for responsible gambling.
Studies show that millions of Thais face gambling-related problems, including addiction, debt, emotional distress and broken relationships.
However, the government has failed to demonstrate awareness of these issues, let alone incorporate measures to address them in the draft bill.
If the government is determined to push the entertainment complex and casino draft bill, it must prove that the law will serve the greater good -- promoting responsible gambling while preventing associated crimes and social harm.
A comprehensive and well-structured approach is necessary to ensure that the benefits of legalised casinos are realised responsibly while potential risks are effectively mitigated.
