Thailand weighs casino legalisation

Bangkok Post

08-07-2025

As Thailand edges closer to legalising casinos under its proposed Entertainment Complex Bill, the debate over potential benefits and risks is intensifying.
But the future of the bill is now in doubt. Amid mounting public opposition to casinos, the legislation has stalled in parliament and may be withdrawn entirely -- a reflection of just how controversial the idea remains in this predominantly Buddhist country.
Thailand's heavy reliance on tourism -- accounting for up to 20% of its economy -- has prompted policymakers to consider whether integrated resorts, complete with casinos, could reinvigorate the sector. Proponents argue it could help revive a stagnating tourism industry. Opponents warn that the social costs may outweigh any economic gains.
For Bo Bernhard, Vice President of Economic Development at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, this is familiar territory. For the past three decades, Mr Bernhard has advised governments on the economic and social impacts of casino-driven tourism, from Singapore and South Korea to South Africa and Japan.
Lesson from Singapore
Speaking to the Bangkok Post's Deeper Dive podcast, Mr Bernhard told stakeholders that Thailand now faces the same dilemma Singapore confronted more than two decades ago.
"At the time, the Singapore Tourism Board admitted, 'We're a beautiful country, a business hub, a banking centre, but ... we're afraid we're a little bit boring,'" he recalled. The city-state feared tourists would fly in for a conference, then rush straight back to the airport.
Singapore ultimately adopted the concept of the "fun economy" by introducing integrated resorts, including the iconic Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa. The result: tourism grew by 10%, the nation's GDP increased, and Singapore became a destination where families now choose to holiday, not just pass through.
The lesson, Mr Bernhard said, is simple. "If you don't create new rides at the amusement park, people stop coming. That's as true for Las Vegas and Orlando as it is for Bangkok or Phuket."
Nobody thinks of Thailand as boring, of course. However, the kingdom, he argued, is showing signs of slowing tourism. "If you are Tokyo and tourism is just a side business, that's manageable. But for Thailand, stagnation in tourism is devastating," he warned.
Mega-resorts, anchored by casinos, have proven to be powerful tools for reviving flagging tourism sectors worldwide, he said.
Crime, Addiction, Resistance
The economic benefits are only one side of the equation. Mr Bernhard acknowledged widespread concerns about gambling addiction -- a "sickness of our time", as he described it.
"We live in an era where problems of excess, whether it's gambling, alcohol, or even social media, are more devastating than problems of deficiency," he told the podcast.
Thailand, which currently bans almost all forms of gambling, has little in the way of support services for problem gamblers. But Mr Bernhard pointed to Singapore as a case study showing that legalisation can actually lead to better public health outcomes, if properly managed.
Contrary to expectations, Singapore's problem gambling rate fell after the opening of the integrated resorts, thanks to rigorous safeguards, education, and treatment programmes.
Concerns about crime also loom large. Mr Bernhard argued that, when properly regulated, casinos are actually a poor choice for criminal enterprises.
"A casino is the worst place to launder money," he said. "Every dollar is monitored by cameras, by humans, by digital systems. The chips themselves are traceable."
But the key, he cautioned, is enforcement. "You need a strong regulatory framework. If it's weak, or if there's corruption, then yes, the risks are real," he said.
In Thailand, many question whether the government has the capacity to enforce such standards. Mr Bernhard admitted the risk cannot be dismissed but noted that modern surveillance and tracking systems offer strong deterrents, if used properly.
To further address addiction concerns, Thailand's draft bill proposes limiting casino access to foreign tourists and the ultra-wealthy. Locals would reportedly have to prove bank deposits of 50 million baht -- a threshold that would effectively bar 99.8% of Thais.
Mr Bernhard questioned the practicality of this. "Singapore uses a S$100 entry fee to discourage impulsive or excessive gambling. But requiring proof of vast wealth is unprecedented and may not be workable," he said.
His view was clear: locals should be allowed entry if they can afford it and if adequate safeguards are in place. "It's about choice," he said. "If the right protections are built, people should be allowed to make that decision."
Beyond the immediate debate about addiction and crime, Mr Bernhard pointed to a global shift. "For the first time in human history, more than 50% of the world's population is middle class or above," he said. "And what do people buy when they enter the middle class? They buy experiences."
With regional competitors like Japan and Singapore already capitalising on this boom, Thailand risks falling behind. "It's like standing at the dawn of the automobile age and saying, 'No thanks, we'll skip that,'" he said.
Ultimately, the decision rests with the Thai public and its lawmakers. "If you are morally opposed to gambling, that's your choice and it's a perfectly valid one," he said. "Our job as researchers isn't to argue morality. It's to give governments the data to make informed decisions."
For now, with the Entertainment Complex Bill stalled and possibly facing withdrawal, Thailand's gamble on the future of its tourism economy remains unresolved.
Scan the QR code to watch the full interview in the latest edition of Bangkok Post's Deeper Dive podcast.