Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are posing the question, is it getting harder to argue in favor of legalization of casinos here in Thailand. Personal preface on this one. I saw some other articles where big names from the gambling industry have been in Thailand and I don't love seeing that because one, they kind of come here and I have articles that I have read and I am not going to read them online, but the attitude is very kind of, let's call it sort of Western arrogance or something; I don't exactly know how to put it. Then on top of it, why does Thailand really need to be talking to a bunch of major players. I mean if Thailand gets some benefit, like if some major Casino Operator from abroad came in and just paid Thailand a billion dollars for the concession to have a casino or a casino space or something here, that would be one thing, but why are they influencing lawmaking here or lawmakers here? I don't see that that's helping anything, and I don't see that it's helping Thailand. Again, if they are curious to see what a possible Bill would look like fair enough, but I have discussed this in prior videos. I don't like this where these foreigners are coming here. I don't care how much money they have, really. It's a matter of you Thailand making this decision; it shouldn't have anything to do with outsiders. That said, let's get into the depths of this because I think it is getting harder to argue, like the more we are looking at it. I kind of started off on the positive side where I was kind of in favour of Casinos. I am in favour of some liberalization regarding cards here in Thailand, I've said this before. I think card rooms could be a real benefit to Thailand: poker rooms etc., and I make a distinction between gambling type cards which would be like blackjack, baccarat - those kinds of games - as opposed to skill games like poker. That's a different kind of card game. Yes, it involves wagering but it's skill related wagering; in a sense it's kind of sporting if you will. Not unlike horse racing for example, which again there is wagering involved but there is a skill element to it. So that said, let's dig into this.

I thought first of making this video actually initially when I read the second article I'm going to cite but then I saw this article and it kind of caused me to think, yeah, I really need to do a video on this. The article is titled: Ex-PM Abhisit slams Casino Bill. By the way Abhisit is an interesting guy. I've actually been here since he was Prime Minister. I remember when he became Prime Minister, and his opinion is one I'm going to listen to, I'll put it that way. That said, quoting directly: "Former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has issued a strong rebuke of the Government's plan to establish integrated entertainment complexes with a casino, warning they will not solve illegal gambling and may damage Thailand's tourism image. Quote: "When I was in Office, I rejected similar proposals because the dangers of gambling-linked crime are real," the former Democrat Party leader said. "The idea that legal casinos can clean up the underground economy is flawed. Look at Government lotteries versus underground ones - they coexist." Yeah, it's a really good point there. The thing you have got to remember is even in the talk of these casinos or these complexes where they have said, well there will be a casino component, they have said well it has like sort of shrunk in scope as the debate has gone on. "Oh, it's not going to be that big of a facility." Well that actually argues further against even legalizing it to begin with. If you broadly legalize casinos across the country, you allowed everybody to go out and get a license like you can get an alcohol license, and you can have gambling on your premises, that would kill illegal gambling because then it wouldn't be anywhere because people can just go get a license and they could have it on their premises, it wouldn't be a big deal. But if you have specific locations, and again there is some balancing to be done, but if there's for example only one complex where it's legal in Thailand, one it leads to monopolization issues, but two, it also doesn't help the illegal casinos, because if the only legal casino, let's say it is in Bangkok, okay, well you're still going to have illegal gambling in Chiang Mai because there is still going to be local demand for it and people aren't going to be able to access it readily in Bangkok and then it leads to just at a street level if you will, a notion that well it is hypocritical. Why can they gamble at this one place in Bangkok, but we here in Chiang Mai, in Phuket or wherever, can't have that? Now again, there is some balancing to be done, and I think the Government's proposal where they have gone to this regional sort of set up where different regions would have different complexes, that might be workable and it might mitigate against the underlying problem of the coexistence between the legal and the illegal, but still I don't know if it can ever be solved. So again, my thoughts are leaning further against it as time has gone on. 

That said, quoting further: "Even if this type of business is made legal, it cannot reduce the illegal side of it." Yeah, exactly. Quoting further: "Because bringing it above ground requires rules and regulations, he said. Quote: "Therefore, if viewed as a matter of goods and services, there will always be advantages and disadvantages between the legal and illegal sectors." That's a great point. It's the paradox that occurred with cannabis legalization back in the United States and arguably one of the, in my opinion, one of the probably points in favour of how it was legalized here in Thailand is in the US, especially places like California where it was done through this “medicinal rubric” and you needed extra documentation and licenses and basically you had to jump through arbitrary hoops, in order to get Cannabis. It led to a situation where it was actually - from a market standpoint - easier to just continue to do it illegally because why go through all the hoops and add all the extra taxes and stuff when you can just sell it out of the back of your car, make your money, and move on? It's similar with gambling okay, and on top of it, much like with the Cannabis thing in those medicinal jurisdictions, it creates the notion of hypocrisy in the mind of the public where they say, "hey, what are you doing? Basically, it's legal “under these circumstances” and we can do it if we jump through all these hoops but we can't do it this way." Why? What's the good reason for that? What's the public policy argument? Now there may be some public policy arguments like it needs to be controlled etc., and obviously needs to be kept out of hands of children and things of that nature, but Thailand basically handled that from the gate and said, "look it's illegal to sell to children" and I hope they throw the book at people that sell to children. That said, the point I'm trying to make here is the former Prime Minister brings up a good point. Simply legalizing it does not make the illegal go away and if anything, it can actually exacerbate problems associated with it. 

That said, quoting further: "Mr. Abhisit questioned the relevance of comparison to Singapore.." - good for him - quoting further: "..arguing that the Kingdom's unique tourism appeal is not dependent on gambling." Yeah, we are not a city-state rock sitting in the middle of the ocean, okay. No offense to Singapore but comparing Singapore to Thailand is like comparing a Ford Ranger pickup truck to a wheelbarrow. They are not the same thing, and I'm not saying that in a pejorative or derogative sense, in any way. I mean that simply as they are just simply not the same thing. Yes, they're both countries, but they don't have the same demography; they're not the same size; they're not the same scale; they don't have the same history. What works in Singapore does not necessarily work in Thailand. It's a very, very good point. That said, quoting further, and this, Thailand touts 0.8% growth boost from Casino complex, Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com. So first thing there, 0.8% growth. I have to imagine, however this article came in to being, the data points, and this is just my surmise, the data points were probably as much in favour of showing economic benefit to the country as could be, I would think. I am not sure of that. I do think Bangkok Post is good about looking for the objective truth on what they are reporting, but the sources perhaps they got data things from, I have got to imagine - especially the ones in favour of gambling - would be telling them all kinds of things, "oh it's going to be a big boon and da, da, da". 0.8% in terms of GDP versus the societal ills that can come from legalization of gambling in this country, I am not sure that for lack of a better term "the juice is worth the squeeze here", okay? Let's quote directly: "The Government says an entertainment complex featuring a casino will still be an economic growth engine with the Finance Ministry projecting it will drive a 0.8% increase in GDP." Well consider the source. The Government wants this, or at least the majority faction of the Coalition wants this, and they have the Finance Ministry; one of their folks holds that Cabinet position. So again, I have to presume they are going to at least present this in the most positive light that they can. And if this is the most positive they can get in terms of the numbers, 0.8%, I mean if they came back and said look, we could see 5% GDP bump because of casinos being legalized, I would say that would be something we'd have to really seriously look at. I mean there are parts of the industrial plant of Thailand that only account for 5%, not only but that account for 5%. So again, I mean tourism is something like 18%. So, see a third of tourism or almost a third of tourism just in sort of one quick, okay we legalize this, that would be substantial, but 0.8%. Again, when you couple that with the fact that there are all kinds of problems that from legalization of gambling, I'm not sure if the cost is worth the benefit. 

That said, quoting further: "He allayed public concerns about the social impacts and possible money laundering activities through casino operations, saying that a Bill to regulate this so-called man-made tourist destination is set to be reviewed by Parliament." Yeah one, casinos are always going to be a nexus for money laundering. Anytime you can go to a place where you can take cash in and bring cash out and there are games of chance and money can be won or lost, and it really can't be tracked or traced with any kind of specificity - and this is not an argument in favour of digitizing everything so we can track and trace everything - casinos like that, they are never going to work okay. It's got to be cash based if you want to bring any money in. So again, I'm leery on the notion that they are going to be able to do very much in terms of "money laundering" okay. 

Meanwhile, "the Bill is set to regulate the so-called man-made tourist destination and said to be reviewed by Parliament." Good, I think it should be reviewed by Parliament. If Parliament ultimately decides they want to pass a Bill on it, well then that's the will of the people, and we should probably all go along with that. But I really hope there is further research done on this and further study, because I am not convinced that this is the best way to do things for the Kingdom of Thailand.