The arguments for legalizing casinos are clear. Topping the list are the economic benefits of bringing underground gambling to the surface and into the clear view of tax authorities, law enforcement and corruption watchdogs. Studies by Chulalongkorn University found that nearly 520 billion baht is lost every year by punters betting on illegal gambling and underground numbers rackets, on overseas trips to border casinos or other jurisdictions and on football betting. A full third of the population are thought to be regular gamblers in one form or another.
Despite periodic pledges and highly publicized raids on gambling rings, tens of billions of baht are paid annually in bribes to law enforcement and local and national politicians to keep gambling afloat. Proponents of legal gambling argue that, the very least, openly allowing gaming would cut off the flow of funds used to corrupt the civil service and body politic. Tax revenues raised from legal gambling could also be used to finance education and social development programmers, a strategy adopted by most countries worldwide.
Others argue that casinos could prove a huge boon for the country’s tourism industry, a mainstay of the economy. Why allow Thailand’s rich and famous to flock to Macau, Las Vegas or Monaco and stimulate capital outflows when many may very well choose to stay at home and place their bets in a Pattaya or Phuket luxury resort if given a choice? Tourism planers and hoteliers would jump at the chance to promote a tasteful casino to add to the spas and beaches which currently stand as the country’s main draws for inbound tourists.
Realists further argue that legalization is essentially an acknowledgement of the obvious: Thais like to gamble. So rather than force many to suffer the risks and indignity of finding underground outlets to satisfy their urge, give the public a legal alternative, one properly licensed and supervised, to at least guarantee some fairness for consumers.
Yet wealth should not be measured in terms of financial gain alone. Trading economic wealth for moral bankruptcy is a poor bargain, especially when sanctioned by the government entrusted with setting policy with the country’s well-being in mind. The pragmatists arguing for legalization on the grounds of failures in enforcement and suppression miss the point. The corruption that has risen due to the failure to enforce laws does not mean the principle is incorrect, but rather the implementation. Tackling the endemic problems of police and political corruption will require strong leadership a willingness to root out a cancer that has long limited the potential of the country and its people. Arguments suggesting that strict licensing could restrict gambling to select locations and to a select clientele also fall flat, for underground gambling would continue to flourish.
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has vowed a full public hearing on the issue before the government takes further action. Mr. Thaksin yesterday repeated that illegal gambling must be suppressed and controlled, but expressed caution on full legalization. Opinion polls on the matter are mixed, with the latest surveys showing some support for selected legalization. Ever the businessman, Mr. Thaksin said that while additional tax revenues did not justify legalization, there were opportunities in controlled gambling and the creation of casinos modelled on family-oriented attractions such as those at Las Vegas.
Government policy should not be based on popularity or profit alone. Legalization would give state sanction to a vice whose victims are mainly the poor seeking to improve their lot on scant odds at the mercy of games of chance. This is one ethical wager which we should firmly decline to place.