Pheu Thai Gambles with Gambling

The Entertainment Complexes Bill is delayed for now

Image credits: คปท

This week, the Pheu Thai government decided to delay consideration of its Entertainment Complexes Bill. What happened, and how did we get here?

Taking action to make gambling legal is not exactly a new idea in Thailand. Thaksin Shinawatra first proposed this idea when he was prime minister. Prayut Chan-o-cha also considered this idea. With Thaksin’s party back in power, legalizing casinos once again became a stated goal of the Pheu Thai government. In August 2024, Thaksin Shinawatra proposed legalizing entertainment complexes in his “Vision for Thailand” speech. Back in January, Thaksin suggested that legal casinos could generate revenue of 100 billion baht a year. Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra believes the entertainment complexes would create “thousands of jobs”

Anticipating the opposition this proposal has generated, Pheu Thai has been keen on emphasizing limits to accessing casinos. In the latest draft of the Entertainment Complexes Bill that the cabinet approved, an entertainment complex would be allowed to dedicate only 10 percent of its space to a casino, and a 5,000 baht entry fee would be required. (The government has said that a stipulation that all casino-goers possess at least 50 million baht in their bank accounts will be dropped).

Pheu Thai has been vociferous in their defense of this bill. Thaksin argued that the death of his earlier proposal as prime minister to legalize casinos allowed Singapore to build them first and steal tourists away from Thailand. Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wetchayachai has gone as far as to say that the revenue generated by these entertainment complexes could help offset the revenue lost by decreasing exports. Reports have even emerged that Thaksin threatened to eject any coalition member that refused to support the bill, although he later denied these claims.

So why has the government put a pause on the bill for now? Because opposition to the bill has been equally fierce. Senators accused the government of prioritizing the casino bill over the earthquake recovery. The progressive People’s Party has announced they are unwilling to lend this bill its support due to lack of feasibility studies and insufficient consideration of spillover effects to society. The PP leader Nattapong Rueangpanyawut has also alluded to accusations that casino licenses will be granted to business groups that are close to government politicians. On the other end of the political spectrum, the ultraconservative Thai Pakdee Party has collected over 100,000 signatures in opposition to this bill, and in collaboration with former red shirt leader Jatuporn Promphan has been organizing demonstrations against the bill (with leaders from Palang Pracharath expressing support).

I’m not entirely sure where we will end up with this bill. Although Pheu Thai is postponing consideration of the bill, the government is adamant that it will still be debated in the next parliamentary session. If coalition partners hold firm, the bill would sail through the lower house, but 60 senators have now said that they are opposed to the legislation. (Could this be the “dark blue Senate” once again in action? Interestingly, the son of Buriram godfather Newin Chidchob, has also expressed his strong opposition to the bill, although Bhumjaithai leader Anutin Charnvirakul insists that he was speaking out of line).

Supporters of the bill exist, of course, and not just among casino-goers. I am sure that some buy the argument that it would be better to legalize casinos and collect state revenue when illegal gambling dens already exists everywhere (what some has coined into the pithy phrase plien suay pen phasee, i.e. “changing illicit dues into taxes). Yet for most, taking gambling out into the open is probably a step too far. A NIDA poll from January found that 59% of Thais opposed investment into entertainment complexes. The opposition has questioned why the party has to rush this policy when it did not include legalizing casinos in its election campaigning, furthering suspicion that ulterior motives exist. The legislation plays into accusations of Pheu Thai being indifferent to morality; the Buddhist Association of Thailand has now released a statement declared that Thailand should be “the land of dharma, not the land of vices.” Research by Larsson, Thananitichot and Selway (2025) has found that more religious Buddhists were already less likely to back Pheu Thai, yet it is precisely more conservative voters that Pheu Thai will need to court as it loses its more progressive voters. In addition, the party’s rhetoric reinforces the perception that Pheu Thai is now a party that has run out of ideas. When its best proposal for boosting a sagging economy is legalizing gambling, many are sure to ask, is the party truly capable of taking Thailand into the future?

Even if the bill passes, there is a chance that this could become yet another trigger for discontent over the government, especially given how opposition has been expressed from both progressives and conservatives. The last thing Pheu Thai wants is a reason for opposition members of all stripes to coalesce against the government. But that is the gamble over gambling that they are making.