New poll: No Thailand IRs without casinos

Earlier this month, the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA) conducted a poll asking Thailand residents if casino legislation could pass without casinos.

Forty-six per cent of respondents said that, sans gambling, the bill is unlikely to pass. Nineteen per cent said passage would be impossible without casinos. And 33% believed entertainment-complex legislation without a casino component could still be viable.

It is the gambling element that has incited widespread opposition to the bill, including multiple demonstrations outside Government House in Bangkok. But the same element has also drawn interest from multinational firms eager to invest in Thailand – including Macau casino concessionaires.

Are operators lining up to build Thai casinos?

MGM Resorts, Melco Resorts and Galaxy Entertainment have already opened offices in Bangkok. Gaming giants Genting, Wynn Resorts and Hard Rock are also considered contenders. All are attracted by estimates that say Thailand could be the third most profitable gaming jurisdiction after Macau and Las Vegas.

Thailand a challenge to Macau?

Optimists say Thailand could even edge Las Vegas to become No 2 worldwide.

Citigroup analysts believe a mature Thai gaming industry could reap gross gaming revenue of $9.1 billion (£7.2 billion) per year. At that level, the jurisdiction would displace Singapore, where two massive integrated resorts generated GGR of $5.94 billion in 2024.

At a recent panel discussion cohosted by Macau Business, Ben Lee, managing partner of IGamiX, said a Thai gaming market has “huge potential. Even if it’s not just about tapping into that potential, it’s a defensive move. Operators want a footprint there to protect market share from competitors.”

With more than 700,000 hotel rooms without gaming and a tourism market of $47 billion in 2024, the kingdom is poised to explode, Lee added.

“Without a doubt, [Thailand] would very quickly become the number-two gaming jurisdiction in the world. And it would give Macau a real run for its money.”

Debate is ‘normal in politics’

That kind of potential is catnip for government leaders, led by Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra. On 29 April, she reiterated her call for coalition partners to present the bill as an economic bonanza.

“This project involves foreign private-sector investment, from which the government will be able to collect taxes – benefiting the country as a whole,” she said. “Moreover, it will create employment opportunities through various activities such as concert organisation which in turn will lead to increased tax revenue.”

Her father, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, shrugged off suggestions that coalition ally Bhumjaithai Party could break with the ruling Pheu Thai over the casino bill. Nation Thailand reports that Bhumjaithai secretary general Chaichanok Chidchob came out against the bill in a House debate last week.

‘This is normal in politics’

“This is normal in politics,” said Thaksin, who supports casino complexes as well as online gambling. “We may sometimes have misunderstandings, but Bhumjaithai knows well that we don’t have real conflicts.” Thaksin also denied allegations he threatened to expel government parties from the coalition if their members oppose the legislation.

However this uncertainty may cool international interest in the market. Indeed, a lack of expert input in the regulations may cause issues. An early draft contains no limit on the number of licences, nor does it set out provision for an independent regulator or measures to mitigate potential social impact.

Without high regulatory standards on a par with other international jurisdictions such as Singapore some operators may be wary of investing in the market.

PM: Plan contains ‘great national benefit’

For now, as lawmakers weigh the pros and cons of the draft bill, supporters will emphasise its value to the public.

“We still have time before the next parliamentary session opens,” said Paetongtarn. “We’ll do our utmost to move this forward. What I presented to Parliament, I believe, could be of great national benefit – otherwise, I would not have initiated this matter.”