Navigating Thailand’s Casino Legalization: The Political Influence on Gaming Regulation and Its Global Implications
Thailand’s Gaming Legalization: The Role of Politicians Raises Concerns
By Muhammad Cohen, iGB Asia Editor at Large
As Thailand moves rapidly towards the legalization of casinos, a significant concern has emerged regarding the proposed gaming law’s structure and oversight. The involvement of high-ranking politicians in key regulatory positions has raised eyebrows among industry experts and stakeholders, who question whether this approach will enable the establishment of world-class gaming venues in a competitive global landscape.
The Draft Gaming Law
Amid the ongoing discussions surrounding Thailand’s casino legalization, the draft gaming law released in August details that a Policy Committee overseeing the establishment of ‘integrated entertainment venues’ will be comprised largely of politicians. This committee will include the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, several cabinet ministers, and high-ranking officials from law enforcement and regulatory bodies, plus appointees chosen by the Prime Minister.
The tasks of this Policy Committee are extensive. They are responsible for setting policies concerning the number and locations of integrated resorts, licensing requirements, casino space allocations, entrance fees for Thai citizens, and tax recommendations. This political composition is unprecedented on a global scale, stirring concerns about the potential fusion of politics and regulation in the gaming sector.
Industry Perspectives
Fredric Gushin, CEO of Spectrum Gaming, considers the political involvement of the committee a necessary evolution. He argues that the multi-party government composition reflects a need for a supportive political framework in building the entertainment complexes. Gushin believes that while the committee may seem politically charged, it functions similarly to legislative committees in other regions that oversee gaming policy.
Andrew Klebanow, principal of Klebanow Consulting, echoed Gushin’s sentiments, noting that regulatory oversight by political leaders is common in many jurisdictions, including the United States. Meanwhile, Peter Cohen, director of regulatory affairs at The Agenda Group, warns that the intertwining of political appointees with regulatory roles could introduce implicit pressures on regulators.
Concerns about political interference in regulatory agencies were also discussed by AG Burnett, a former chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board, who emphasized the necessity of independence for regulators to make unbiased decisions. He advocates for establishing regulatory bodies staffed with experienced professionals, insulated from political pressures.
Stability Amid Political Change
Thailand has a history of political volatility, a fact underscored by Prime Minister Srettha Thavsin’s recent ousting shortly after the gaming law’s release. His successor, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, daughter of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, has embraced the casino initiative as part of her governance strategy. This continual reshuffling of political power raises questions about the stability of regulatory oversight for a sector that demands long-term planning and investment.
Brendan Bussmann, managing partner at B Global, points out that operators and suppliers favor stable regulatory environments free from excessive political influence. In the gaming industry, where significant capital investments are at stake, regulatory reforms inspired by shifting political landscapes can deter potential investors.
International Comparisons and Aspirations
Critics suggest that Thailand’s opting for a politically-driven regulatory structure represents a departure from international best practices sourced from jurisdictions with established and successful gaming markets, such as Singapore and Nevada. Observers like Jorge Godinho, a professor of gaming law at institutions in Macau and Portugal, indicate that understanding regulatory frameworks elsewhere is critical for Thailand’s future success.
Thailand has signaled ambitions of developing ‘Singapore-style’ integrated resorts, yet many in the industry remain skeptical due to the perceived lack of true international engagement. Lee Kah Wee, an expert on Singapore’s casino developments, argues that successful gaming markets require governmental mechanisms to ensure compliance and collaboration from casino developers. Without such a framework, Thailand may face challenges in attracting top gaming operators accustomed to stringent regulatory environments.
Conclusion: Navigating Forward
As Thailand navigates the complexity of gaming law drafts and the implications of a politically-infused regulatory environment, questions abound regarding the effectiveness and credibility of a system devised to oversee its burgeoning gaming industry. Facing pressure to fulfill ambitions of becoming a gaming hub comparable to Singapore, Thai authorities must balance political oversight with the independence needed to foster robust regulatory standards.
While the Thai gaming market presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity, the path to realizing that potential remains riddled with uncertainty given the current structure, political inflections, and the evolving landscape of global gaming.
—
Muhammad Cohen is a former US diplomat and current iGB Asia editor at large. He has covered the casino business in Asia since 2006 and writes about the intersection of politics and entertainment industries.