“I’m completely against this. For me, gambling is wrong ‒ no matter where it happens, it’s still wrong,” Don Limnantapisit, leader of a group who staged an anti-casino protest at Phuket Provincial Hall earlier this month, told The Phuket News.
According to Mr Don, a casino in Phuket would do more harm than good. “If you look at the big picture, some might argue that legalising casinos would help to boost tax revenues, making it seem like the right move.
“But have you ever considered the cost to our culture, traditions and environment? Has anyone truly researched these impacts? Have we looked at the damage this could do to families, the rise in social problems, even domestic violence? More people stuck in debt?
“Some might argue that only foreigners should be allowed to gamble then, not Thais. But what happens if those foreigners come here, lose everything and end up causing problems? That could still lead to crime. It’s a problem either way,” he said.
Mr Don also pointed out casinos elsewhere are hotbeds for criminal networks, money laundering and illegal businesses. “Legalising casinos could open the door for more corruption, and more criminal activities, not just among business figures, but also within political and government circles,” he added.
Mr Don and his group outlined six key concerns in their statement to the Phuket Governor, submitted during the protest earlier this month.
The concerns were listed as causing potential harm to Phuket’s global image, increased crime, threats to community wellbeing, unequal economic benefits, conflict with sustainable development goals, and a lack of public participation in the decision-making process.
The group called on the government to abandon the draft legislation and instead prioritise policies that promote a creative, fair and sustainable economy in line with Phuket’s identity as a high-quality tourism destination.
Thiraphong Chuaychu, Phuket Provincial Chief Administrative Officer (Palad), accepted the statement on behalf of Phuket Governor Sophon Suwannarat.
Of note, the draft law for casinos and entertainment complexes approved by Cabinet late last month will significantly limit how many Thai punters can go to casinos, with an entry fee of B5,000 and proof of at least B50 million in bank deposits, effectively blocking large swathes of the population.
Deputy Finance Minister Julapun Amornvivat had earlier said that the assets requirement for Thai nationals would probably be scrapped because it would exclude too many people. He said officials had decided to submit the draft in its current form and deal with possible amendments later.
Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra told reporters after the draft law was approved that the details of the law were not final as parliament would have the final say.
The bill will be sent to the House of Representatives, and if passed, will also need approval from the Senate and His Majesty the King, she added.
Another restriction in the draft is that the casino area may only occupy up to 10% of the entire space of an entertainment complex, according to a government statement.
ECONOMIC BOOST
Meanwhile, well-known Patong businessman Preechavude ‘Prab’ Keesin took a stance against the growing ‘Phuket People Don’t Want Casinos’ movement.
He expressed support for building a casino in Patong, arguing that the area already has the infrastructure to support casino businesses and that it would help distribute income more evenly across the community.
“If it really happens, it will create jobs and boost the economy,” Mr Preechavude said.
“Right now, we don’t have many tools to drive economic growth, so we need something new. Phuket is the right place for a casino because nearly all of the real casino-goers are foreign tourists, very few Thais actually play,” he added.
However, Mr Preechavude emphasised the need to listen to the public, hold forums and possibly referendums to ensure people can take part in the decision-making process.
Mr Preechavude believes developing the casino industry offers more economic and social benefits than drawbacks.
“This will bring a positive impact on the economy and society,” he said. “In terms of the ‘entertainment complex’ required, a casino is to occupy only 5-10% of casinos, indicated on draft, not the entire area.
“It’s just a small part that adds to the entertainment industry, casinos are like a piece of the puzzle,” he added
NEUTRAL CONCERNS
Kongsak Koophongsakorn, President of the Phuket Chamber of Commerce, has declined to either support or oppose a casino in Phuket.
“I believe the government lacks sufficient information to say whether having a casino is truly beneficial. When the casino law was first introduced, the public mainly heard about it through the media. The government gave only a brief explanation, without clearly defining what an ‘Entertainment Complex’ or ‘Casino Bill’ actually means,” he said.
“There hasn’t been enough information about the benefits or impacts. Each area in Thailand has different cultures, beliefs, and economic conditions and not all are suitable for such developments,” he added.
“For example, if the aim is to attract more middle- to high-income tourists, how many more visitors will Phuket gain from the current 14 million? How much more income will that bring? None of this has been explained.
“It’s also unclear how the revenue from the casino will be distributed – will it go to the government, the casino operators, or the local area? Will it be used to address social issues?
“Also, the government should be transparent about how taxes will be collected and used. This includes VAT, income tax, and any special excise taxes,” Mr Kongsak continued.
“We also worry that once legalised, regulation will become too loose. Thailand may not yet have the social strength to handle the consequences, unlike countries such as Singapore.
“I’m open to the idea if it’s done responsibly – for example, a single integrated resort like Marina Bay in Singapore, where a casino is just one part of a bigger attraction.
“But realistically, we cannot say that the income will go to locals, much of the income will go to investors, not the community. While jobs may be created, we must stay cautious.
“To be honest, many laws in Thailand are not strictly enforced. For example, hotel regulations and height limits for buildings have been relaxed over time, showing how rules can change to suit developers.
“So even if rules start off strict – for example, only allowing high-income people to enter – those limits may be lowered later to benefit investors… That’s something I worry about,” he said.
If Phuket were to be approved to host a casino, Mr Kongsak suggested Mai Khao as the preferred location. ”I believe Mai Khao is a more suitable location than Patong, which has no space left,” he noted.
“However, if I were the government I would choose a different province to build the new entertainment complex ‒ not just Phuket. Phuket is already thriving with its existing strengths, but developing other provinces is just as important for balanced national growth.
“In any case, this is still a draft law. The government has postponed the [House of Representatives] vote for now, and a public hearing and a vote are both required before it can move forward,” Mr Kongsak concluded.
Additional reporting by Eakkapop Thongtub