Key points:
- Senate committee raises concerns over lack of transparency in proposed casino project
- Advisers criticise unchecked authority of proposed policy board
- Calls grow for referendum before bill can proceed
A Thai Senate special committee has urged the government to hold a public referendum before proceeding with its controversial casino-entertainment complex bill, citing constitutional and governance concerns. The request was made during a committee session chaired by Senator Veerapun Suvannamai, as reported by the Bangkok Post.
Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra had been invited to explain the government's position but was unavailable due to an official visit to Vietnam. Deputy Finance Minister Julapun Amornvivat, who was also overseas, was expected to attend in her place. The Prime Minister is now scheduled to address the panel on 5 June.
In the meantime, the committee focused on the academic content of the draft bill. Senator Chirmsak Pinthong, serving as an adviser, expressed alarm over several aspects of the proposal. He argued that the legislation appeared to be a covert attempt to legalise full-scale casino operations under the guise of entertainment development.
He criticised the bill for assigning wide-ranging powers to a policy board chaired by the Prime Minister, dubbing it a “casino cabinet”. The legislation currently states that state revenue from casino concessions would be capped at 5 billion baht, without establishing a minimum threshold, raising concerns about revenue distribution and oversight.
Senator Chirmsak also questioned the absence of a public bidding process, environmental assessments and community hearings. He referred to potential development sites, including Bangkok’s Klong Toey Port, where land valued at over 100 billion baht could be transferred into investor hands for a relatively small annual concession payment.
Other proposed locations include parts of Chiang Mai and the U-Tapao area in Chon Buri. Committee members warned that the 30-year concession model may place undue risk on future generations and could disproportionately benefit foreign investors.
