Deputy Finance Minister Julapun Amornvivat recently announced the government's controversial casino-entertainment complex bill will top the legislative agenda when parliament reconvenes in July.
This declaration, made despite the bill's fraught history and intense public opposition, raises urgent questions about the government's priorities and motivation behind its unusual fast-tracking.
The proposed legislation, which would legalise the opening of a casino in permitted entertainment complexes, was shelved in the previous parliamentary session after encountering widespread criticism. Prominent medical professionals, academics, and civil society groups raised concerns about the bill's social, economic, and ethical ramifications.
Yet little has changed since then. Thailand's economy remains fragile. The impacts of newly imposed US trade tariffs loom large. Structural challenges persist from household debt, to the cost of living and uneven recovery in tourism. And yet, the government now appears more determined than ever to fast-track this bill. Why?
What is especially alarming is the deputy finance minister's previous admission that no feasibility study has been conducted yet. Such a study would take place after the bill becomes law and the regulatory infrastructure is established, he said. If the eventual study finds the plan unworkable or inadvisable, will the government halt the project? Or will it push ahead, empowered by legislation already in place?
This approach erodes trust not only in the policy itself, but in the government's commitment to evidence-based decisions. Worse still, the administration's eagerness to press on has fuelled public suspicion. Who truly benefits from this project? Are the claimed national interests merely a convenient cover for private or vested interests?
The promised economic gains from casinos are undeniable. Mr Julapun has cited strong interest from global giants like Wynn Resorts and MGM Resorts, and hinted at investments upwards of 300 billion baht per site. But the economic upside cannot be the sole consideration -- especially when the potential downsides are profound.
The problem is the current bill lacks enforceable safeguards against corruption, money laundering, and gambling addiction. It is just a path to let the business run without protective measures against the social impacts which will follow.
A proposed rule requiring Thai nationals to have at least 50 million baht in their bank accounts to gain entry to a casino may appear strict, but under the bill, a government-appointed committee would have the authority to revise this condition at any time. In short, the law would empower future administrations to weaken these controls behind closed doors.
Even the coalition is divided. The Bhumjaithai Party, a key partner, has expressed unease with the bill. Civil society remains unconvinced. Pheu Thai's push risks deepening rifts and destabilising the government.
The government has a duty not only to govern, but to listen, consult, and build trust. If it truly believes in this policy, it must begin with transparency. That means commissioning independent feasibility studies now, not later. Only when the public is adequately informed and when trust restored can such a controversial policy even begin to be considered.
Until then, this rush to legislate feels more like the Pheu Thai government is rolling the dice even though Thais do not want to place a bet yet.
