Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej underlined his intention to legalise casinos after his return from a two-day visit to Cambodia, confirming his stance on the controversial idea he first espoused on Sunday.
The reaction from his own cabinet symbolised that from the general public. While Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung wasted no time to second the motion, saying he could get the proposal off the ground immediately if asked, Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee cautioned that legalising illegal activities might have adverse impacts particularly on the young and PM's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair suggested the government hear from the public first.
Before there is a referendum on the idea, we must know what types of gambling will be made legal, what mechanisms will be in place to protect vulnerable members of society and how will gambling facilities be protected from being tools for money laundering, loan sharking and protection rackets.
Although the idea of legalised casinos has been bandied about since the late 1990s, some observers see the sudden renewal of interest in legalised casinos as part of an agenda orchestrated by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. During the first Thaksin administration, there was a strong push for legalised casinos. In October 2003, the Government Lottery Office (GLO) was instructed to launch a final study on legalised casinos. Then deputy prime minister Visanu Krua-ngam told the GLO the government's idea was to limit the casinos to specially selected entertainment complexes to be set up in designated (tourist) locations.
A referendum was also planned, and finally it was decided that it would be held in conjunction with the early 2005 general election. However, amid stiff opposition the idea was put on the back burner.
The biggest argument for legalised gambling is that, since people are going to do it anyway, the government should get a share of profits rather than having them flow to casinos in other countries or to Thailand's ''underground economy''. People are assured that revenues will go into social programmes, such as health care and education.
Chulalongkorn economist Pasuk Pongpaichit, co-author of the book Guns, Girls, Gambling, Ganja: Thailand's Illegal Economy and Public Policy, knows far more than most about the country's underground economy, and yet she came out against the legalisation of casinos when proposed by the Thaksin government. In a 2007 interview, she said she knew it ''would be a political deal with no social controls''.
Ms Pasuk noted: ''In the long run it makes no sense to criminalise gambling, partly because it results in so much corruption of the police. But we have to approach change in the right sequence.''
One of the first sequences would be to reform the police force to stem corruption. Unless there are reforms, there is no point in trying to bring underground activities into the light.
Before a referendum is held, a detailed plan on the administration of any legalised casinos should be drawn up, with mechanisms to assure transparency.
Even with police reforms and transparency, there will still be many people with legitimate objections to legalised gambling.
As Professor Pasuk has noted, gambling often serves as a tax on the poor. There is also the danger that increased availability of casinos would result in more obsessive gamblers.
And many people feel that no matter what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse, gambling is immoral and no government should serve as master of the game.
The reaction from his own cabinet symbolised that from the general public. While Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung wasted no time to second the motion, saying he could get the proposal off the ground immediately if asked, Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee cautioned that legalising illegal activities might have adverse impacts particularly on the young and PM's Office Minister Jakrapob Penkair suggested the government hear from the public first.
Before there is a referendum on the idea, we must know what types of gambling will be made legal, what mechanisms will be in place to protect vulnerable members of society and how will gambling facilities be protected from being tools for money laundering, loan sharking and protection rackets.
Although the idea of legalised casinos has been bandied about since the late 1990s, some observers see the sudden renewal of interest in legalised casinos as part of an agenda orchestrated by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. During the first Thaksin administration, there was a strong push for legalised casinos. In October 2003, the Government Lottery Office (GLO) was instructed to launch a final study on legalised casinos. Then deputy prime minister Visanu Krua-ngam told the GLO the government's idea was to limit the casinos to specially selected entertainment complexes to be set up in designated (tourist) locations.
A referendum was also planned, and finally it was decided that it would be held in conjunction with the early 2005 general election. However, amid stiff opposition the idea was put on the back burner.
The biggest argument for legalised gambling is that, since people are going to do it anyway, the government should get a share of profits rather than having them flow to casinos in other countries or to Thailand's ''underground economy''. People are assured that revenues will go into social programmes, such as health care and education.
Chulalongkorn economist Pasuk Pongpaichit, co-author of the book Guns, Girls, Gambling, Ganja: Thailand's Illegal Economy and Public Policy, knows far more than most about the country's underground economy, and yet she came out against the legalisation of casinos when proposed by the Thaksin government. In a 2007 interview, she said she knew it ''would be a political deal with no social controls''.
Ms Pasuk noted: ''In the long run it makes no sense to criminalise gambling, partly because it results in so much corruption of the police. But we have to approach change in the right sequence.''
One of the first sequences would be to reform the police force to stem corruption. Unless there are reforms, there is no point in trying to bring underground activities into the light.
Before a referendum is held, a detailed plan on the administration of any legalised casinos should be drawn up, with mechanisms to assure transparency.
Even with police reforms and transparency, there will still be many people with legitimate objections to legalised gambling.
As Professor Pasuk has noted, gambling often serves as a tax on the poor. There is also the danger that increased availability of casinos would result in more obsessive gamblers.
And many people feel that no matter what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse, gambling is immoral and no government should serve as master of the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment