The Thai Senate is preparing to deliberate a committee report that calls for the rejection of the previous government’s controversial casino-entertainment complex bill. Although the bill itself has already been withdrawn from the House and the Paetongtarn Shinawatra administration has since left office, the scheduled debate will move forward with the report’s findings, reflecting the strong concerns voiced within the Senate.

Casino Bill Withdrawn but Scrutiny Remains

The bill was introduced by the Paetongtarn government earlier this year with the stated aim of boosting tourism by developing entertainment complexes that would include casino operations. Despite being framed as a tourism initiative, critics argued the legislation’s real intent was to legalise casino gambling, pointing to the annex of the proposal as evidence.

The Cabinet withdrew the legislation in early July after mounting criticism, but the Senate’s special committee, established to examine the bill, has continued its work. On Tuesday, September 23, it is expected to present its report, which underscores why lawmakers should remain wary of similar proposals in the future.

The Senate committee, chaired by Senator Veeraphan Suwannamai, delivered a clear verdict: the bill would do more harm than good. Its report stressed that legalising casino operations under the guise of entertainment complexes would undermine Thailand’s constitutional principles, weaken public order, and create long-lasting societal problems.

One major objection relates to the bill’s economic rationale. The panel concluded that gambling complexes generate little genuine economic value since revenues come from redistributing money between winners and losers rather than creating new sources of growth. It warned that infrastructure costs and state liabilities would outweigh any benefits, leaving the government burdened rather than enriched.

On the social front, the report highlighted a series of risks: gambling addiction, family disruption, criminal activity, and added strain on the public health system. In terms of national security, it warned that casinos could serve as hubs for money laundering and organised crime.

Constitutional and Legal Issues

According to Nation Thailand, the committee also raised grave concerns about violations of Thailand’s Constitution. It cited Article 3, which requires state institutions to uphold the rule of law for peace and order, and Article 26, which bars legislation inconsistent with fundamental legal principles. The report criticised the bill’s provision to establish an Entertainment Complex Policy Board chaired by the prime minister. This body would have had sweeping powers to amend or abolish laws to suit the industry, bypassing democratic checks and balances.

“The bill effectively legalises gambling businesses under the guise of tourism promotion. This contradicts moral standards and undermines the constitutional principle of rule of law,” the committee stated in its report.

Beyond domestic impacts, the Senate panel noted that the legislation could harm Thailand’s international standing. It argued that embracing casino complexes might portray the country as prioritising short-term revenue at the expense of sustainable development and responsible governance. The report recommended that the government instead look to alternative tourism strategies, particularly wellness complexes, which could attract visitors without the social harms associated with gambling.

While the committee firmly rejected the casino bill, it also laid out potential paths should the government choose to revisit the idea in the future. These included requiring transparent impact assessments, publishing results for public review, and holding a national referendum before proceeding with legalisation. If the policy went forward but failed to deliver on its economic promises or safeguard against negative effects, the government would be obliged to provide remedies and compensation.

Ultimately, the panel urged the government to align any new proposals with constitutional requirements and limit the powers of the policy board to prevent overreach. Should these conditions remain unmet, the report recommends the Senate reject any similar legislation outright.