Thailand stands at a crossroads as Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra champions a policy that could reshape the nation’s economic and social landscape: the legalisation of casinos, carefully framed as “entertainment complexes.” In her frequent public addresses—sometimes multiple times a day—she underscores the potential for these complexes to boost tourism and revenue. Yet, beneath the euphemism lies a contentious issue that has sparked both fervent support and deep concern. As Thailand contemplates reviving a concept that briefly existed decades ago, the question looms: can the country balance economic gains with the social risks that gambling might unleash?
A Policy Rooted in Economic Ambition
The Thai government’s push to legalise casinos is driven by a clear economic rationale. With tourism already a cornerstone of the nation’s economy, contributing significantly to GDP, the addition of entertainment complexes is seen as a way to attract high-spending foreign visitors. The model mirrors proposals in other South East Asian nations, where integrated resorts—combining casinos with hotels, shopping, and entertainment—have lured international tourists. Proponents argue that such developments could create jobs, stimulate local businesses, and generate substantial tax revenue, particularly in tourist hubs like Bangkok, Phuket, and Pattaya.
Prime Minister Paetongtarn has been a vocal advocate, consistently highlighting the transformative potential of these complexes. While she avoids the term “casino,” the policy’s intent is unmistakable. Her government envisions a controlled rollout, likely inspired by successful regional models, to position Thailand as a premier destination for global travellers. If implemented effectively, the plan could inject billions of baht into the economy, a tempting prospect for a nation seeking to recover from recent economic challenges. 
Yet, the historical context of gambling in Thailand tempers optimism. Legal casinos existed briefly in the past, but were shuttered amid concerns over social ills. Gambling, though culturally familiar to many Thais, has long been restricted to underground operations or state-sanctioned lotteries. The reintroduction of casinos, even under strict regulation, raises questions about whether history might repeat itself.
Lessons From Regional Neighbours
Thailand need not look far for examples of both the promise and peril of casino legalisation. Two contrasting case studies—Singapore and the Philippines—offer valuable insights into what might lie ahead.
Singapore’s approach to casinos, embedded within its Integrated Resorts (IRs) framework, is often cited as a benchmark for success. With only two licensed casinos—Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa—the city-state has tightly regulated the industry since its inception in 2010. These resorts are not standalone gambling dens but multifaceted complexes that include luxury hotels, convention centres, and entertainment facilities, ensuring a broad economic impact beyond just gaming revenue. Singapore’s strict regulatory measures are key to its model. The Casino Control Act governs operations, while the Casino Regulatory Authority ensures compliance. To protect locals from gambling addiction, citizens and permanent residents must pay hefty entry fees—S$150 per day or S$3,000 annually. Additional safeguards, such as self-exclusion orders and family-initiated bans, aim to mitigate social harm. Financial oversight is equally rigorous, with anti-money laundering protocols and mandatory reporting of suspicious transactions.
The results speak for themselves. Singapore has attracted high-spending tourists from across Asia, particularly from China, Indonesia, and Malaysia, while minimising negative impacts on its own population. Employment in the tourism and service sectors has surged, and the government has maintained a cap on casino numbers, with no plans to expand beyond the current two until at least 2030. For Thailand, Singapore’s experience suggests that with careful planning and robust oversight, casinos can be an economic boon without spiralling into social chaos.
A Cautionary Tale From The Philippines
In stark contrast, the Philippines’ experience with casinos serves as a warning of what can go wrong. Legalised in 1977 with the aim of drawing foreign tourists, the industry initially flourished with resort-style casinos akin to those now proposed in Thailand. However, over time, local participation spiralled out of control, leading to widespread gambling addiction, debt, and associated crime. Economic inequality and political corruption exacerbated these issues, undermining the intended benefits.
The situation deteriorated further with the legalisation of online gambling in 2016 under President Rodrigo Duterte. Marketed as a way to regulate illicit operations and target foreign players, particularly from China, it instead fuelled a surge in human trafficking, cyber fraud, and money laundering. By 2024, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. banned online gambling entirely, citing national security risks and links to organised crime. Even traditional casinos, still legal, have struggled to recover their reputation as crime rates soared, making the Philippines the highest in South East Asia for criminal activity over the past seven years. Tourist arrivals have plummeted as a result.
For Thailand, the Philippines’ trajectory underscores the dangers of inadequate regulation and enforcement. If casinos draw locals into excessive gambling or become conduits for illicit activities, the social costs could far outweigh any economic gains. The question remains whether Thailand can avoid these pitfalls or if it risks mirroring its neighbour’s failures.
Domestic Debate: Is There Support or Scepticism
Within Thailand, the casino proposal has ignited a polarised debate. Supporters, including business leaders and tourism stakeholders, argue that legalisation is a pragmatic step to capitalise on an already thriving underground gambling culture. They point to the potential for job creation and infrastructure development, particularly in less affluent regions where tourism could drive growth. Some also believe that regulated casinos could curb illegal gambling dens, redirecting revenue to the state.
Opponents, however, fear a repeat of historical missteps. Civil society groups and religious leaders have voiced concerns about the moral and social implications, warning that gambling addiction could exacerbate poverty and inequality. Critics also highlight the risk of increased crime, from petty theft to organised syndicates, drawing parallels with the Philippines’ experience. There is particular unease about whether the government can enforce strict regulations in a country where corruption has historically undermined policy implementation.
Public sentiment, as reflected in social media and local discussions, appears divided. Many Thais acknowledge gambling as a cultural norm but remain wary of its formal endorsement. The government’s framing of casinos as “entertainment complexes” has done little to assuage fears, with some viewing it as a superficial attempt to downplay the policy’s true nature.
The Road Ahead: Balancing Act or Slippery Slope?
As Thailand weighs the legalisation of casinos, the stakes could not be higher. On one hand, the economic argument is compelling. Integrated resorts could position Thailand as a regional leader in tourism, rivalling Singapore’s success and drawing millions more visitors annually. Jobs, investment, and tax revenue would follow, potentially transforming urban and rural economies alike.
On the other hand, the social risks are undeniable. If not tightly controlled, casinos could deepen existing inequalities, fuel addiction, and invite criminal activity. The government’s ability to implement and enforce regulations will be critical. Singapore’s model offers a blueprint for success, with its emphasis on limited licences, integrated development, and protective measures for locals. Yet, replicating this in Thailand—a country with different cultural, political, and institutional dynamics—will be no small feat. The Philippines’ cautionary tale looms large, a reminder that good intentions can unravel without robust oversight.
Speculative projections about the policy’s impact must be approached with caution. If reforms are structured to prioritise foreign tourism and limit local access, as in Singapore, the economic benefits may outweigh the downsides. However, if enforcement falters or if locals are drawn into unchecked gambling, the social costs could be severe, as estimates from other nations suggest—though such outcomes remain unconfirmed in Thailand’s context. The government has yet to release detailed plans on regulation, leaving much to speculation.
Prime Minister Paetongtarn’s persistent advocacy signals that the policy is a priority, but its success hinges on public trust and meticulous execution. As debates unfold in parliament and public forums, all eyes are on whether Thailand can strike a delicate balance or if it risks sliding down a slippery slope. For now, the nation watches and waits, grappling with a decision that could redefine its future.
