Meanwhile, 30.23 per cent have doubts about economic effectiveness, 28.09 per cent want to know what measures the government will take to tackle gambling harm <\/strong>and 24.89 per cent ask what measures the government will take to prevent money laundering. Some 24.6 per cent of respondents questioned how the government plans to prevent criminal activities<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some 20.1 per cent of respondents questioned whether the government was making sufficient measures to mitigate social impacts<\/strong>, 8.6 per cent were sceptical about the ability to curb illegal gambling and 18.5 per cent questioned whether the policy would genuinely attract tourists. Some 17.4 per cent questioned what Thai citizens would gain from the policy and 16.5 per cent expressed concern over whether the entertainment complexes would become a source of political funding<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Almost 13 per cent wondered whether the legalisation of casinos would create new jobs and 12 per cent asked whether the process of awarding casino licences would be transparent and free of corruption. Some 11.9 per cent wondered why the government did not hold a referendum before drafting the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As regards social and political conflicts due to the policy, <\/strong>31.8 per cent said it could lead to a new and severe conflict, while 31.6 per cent believed the casino legalisation would lead to a new conflict, but not severe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The draft bill to legalise casinos in Thailand approved on January 13 proposes 30-year casino licences with the option for a 10-year renewal. Complexes would be located in designated areas and operated by companies registered in Thailand with a minimum paid-up capital of THB10bn (US$283m).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A group of academics have suggested that the government should conduct a referendum on the country\u2019s proposed casino legislation. D. Nonarit Bisonyabut<\/strong>, a researcher from the Thailand Development Research Institute; Nualnoi Treerat<\/strong>, director of Chulalongkorn University\u2019s Centre for Gambling Studies; Chittawan Chanakul<\/strong>, a lecturer at Thammasat University, and Thanakorn Komkrit<\/strong>, secretary-general of the Stop Gambling Foundation, took part in a roundtable discussion hosted by the Thai language newspaper Krungthep Turakij.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bisonyabut raised concerns about corruption and money laundering<\/strong> and warned that granting licences to selected businesses could lead to a monopoly and exploitation. He suggested that the government prepare a report on how it intends to address public concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Treerat said that although the casino bill is based on Singapore\u2019s <\/strong>model, Thailand has not adopted Singapore\u2019s measures to reduce societal risks. She said there was no support for people with gambling-harm-related issues and called for limited access for certain visitors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chanakul argued that effective governance and low levels of corruption<\/strong> were crucial for a country seeking to allow casinos. She noted Thailand\u2019s drop to 107th place in the 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index and also cited studies showing that gambling can reduce economic growth by 1 per cent and increase crime rates. Chittawan suggested that setting a minimum licence fee of THB5bn could reduce corruption risks but called for a referendum to understand public opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Komkrit criticised the lack of clear regulations on credit provision to gamblers, the absence of a regulatory body to manage societal impacts and insufficient public participation. He suggested the Gambling Act to should be updated.<\/p>\n\n\nThai academics call for referendum on casino bill<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![](\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/asia-pacific\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2024\/01\/166801721216396656531638282044macau-delays-gaming-law-review-due-to-the-pandemic-1-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n