Gambling row getting hotter

Sept 5, 2011
Bangkok Post

Thailand lost millions of baht on the weekend, as gamblers took their addictions and thrill-seeking to Cambodia. They were locked out of their usual haunts as Bangkok casinos suddenly disappeared in a cloud of rare law enforcement. The alternately entertaining and serious escapades of the Bangkok casinos has raised an old question: Should Thailand have legal casino gambling?

The answer has always been negative, by the government and by citizens. But times and circumstances change and the issue deserves a detailed and honest look.

Those who strongly favour legal casino gambling believe the answer is almost too simple to explain. Proponents stress that gambling happens even when illegal, that legalised betting can be more easily policed, that casinos attract tourists and that the government could substantially boost tax revenues.

Opponents also believe it's an easy case. Thailand is a conservative country, that the religion frowns on casinos, that gambling impoverishes and breaks up families, and that government has no business promoting _ let along profiting _ from an activity that at best is of dubious morality. In addition, profits and high tax revenues are by no means certain. Poorly managed or (worse) corrupt casinos lose money.

The idea that gambling should be legalised because it is a widespread activity makes little sense. Smoking in restaurants was widespread, fixing prices was widespread, and spousal abuse remains one of the black marks on our society. In any case, those who support legalised gambling generally oppose open betting. They want regulation, age limits, policing of casinos and their accounts, and more.

Equally, however, those who oppose casinos must honestly admit that legalised betting would have virtually no effect on gambling addiction and resulting harm to families. The best law enforcement, the most severe anti-corruption crackdown cannot stop gambling by those who are determined to gamble. As the weekend exodus to Poipet and similar casino centres proved, those who are determined to gamble cannot be deterred.

The claim that Thailand could attract gamblers from other countries to one or more Thai casinos is undoubtedly true. Assuming it was honest, scrupulously managed and policed against corruption _ huge assumptions, surely _ there is a good chance an open Thai casino could be profitable. Equally true is that many Thais would resent seeing their government involved in an industry as dubious as drugs or prostitution.

The contentious issue still has no easy answers. That does not mean there is no answer. Inertia favours a continued ban on casino gaming. That means it also favours the sort of corruption that just last month saw senior policemen running illegal casinos. If the ban on games of chance continues, then, logically, the public and the media should actively support exposing law-breaking officials. They deserve to lose their authority, their jobs and, after prosecution, their liberty.

After several decades of mostly desultory public debate, the country should make a positive decision about gambling: Keep the ban or end it. If the latter, there must be strong decisions on how to run and police the casino. To prevent corruption, outsiders should be consulted, as Singapore has done. If the nation decides to continue a ban on most gambling, new and more effective methods are needed for enforcement. What is intolerable is the current system of massive underground, illegal betting, with criminals in charge.