OPINION

Casinos not all bad

Re: "Prayuth to weigh in on legalising gambling", (BP, Jan 16).

The idea of opening casinos in Thailand is not new, but was proposed by previous governments without success. It was seen as "anti-Buddhism".

The truth is many vices are enjoyed by Thais and foreigners alike in this country. Lottery is technically gambling but, on the 1st and 16th of every month most Thais are eager to await winning results. We have to face the fact that demand for gambling exists, as it does for marijuana and other vices. Being illegal here, gambling simply moves off-shore to neighbouring countries and on-line, and indeed, underground.

I support having casinos here, especially in second-tier cities to promote tourism in the post-Covid era. Just look at Singapore's Marina Bay Sands Casino: a tourism magnet generating a huge amount of revenue for the government and for locals.

When I was living in Melbourne, I enjoyed visiting Crown Casino, not so much for gambling as for its variety of restaurants, cafes, cinemas, and other attractions. Most locals similarly went there to socialise and for entertainment purposes. It would be more accurate to describe Crown Casino as an entertainment complex rather than a casino.

The devil is always in the detail, however. Ideas are cheap; executions are highly prized. Gambling addiction will rise, as will many families' financial difficulties. Gambling counselling and blacklisting addicts would aid in this effort. The entertainment complex must be accessible to and from airports and public transport. Who is going to manage it? Will it have the same fate as Thai Airways? Will it be privately owned or a private-public joint investment? And last but not least, taxpayers must profit from this project, not exclusively investors.

The excellent article by Danny Marks left no doubt readers' minds that the government is complicit in the air pollution caused by burning sugarcane prior to harvest.

What makes the matter so hopeless is that one man, in a short period of time, can properly investigate the situation, understand the farmers' dilemma and come up with answers, while authorities and the ministries involved continue to do nothing.

There was one vital point that I felt Mr Marks should have further investigated: sugarcane provides 1.5 million jobs in Thailand.

I am not doubting the number but would be interested to know how many of those jobs are performed by Thais and how many by the cheap imported labour from nearby countries. It's one thing to provide work for your own citizens but another to foul up your atmosphere with a process needing immigrant labour to enrich a monopoly business that doesn't search for improvements.

I am curious about the government's concessions agreement with the Bangkok Mass Transit System.

As I understand it, the original 30-year concession was for "build, operate, and transfer". So that means that the company would build it, operate it for 30 years, then transfer it to the government.

If that is the case, why would the government not take ownership and manage it for the benefits of the citizens, instead of continually extending the contract, kowtowing to the demands of the company? Since the government would be the owner, it would be free to call for bids from new operators and set its own fares?

I would appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this.