A coalition of civic organisations in Thailand has filed a petition demanding a national referendum on the country’s controversial casino bill. Signed by almost 54,000 Thai residents, the petition seeks to give the public a direct say on the Entertainment Complex Act, legislation that proposes legalising integrated resorts with casinos and licensing up to five such complexes in its initial phase of development.

More than 100 representatives of an anti-casino network presented the petition to the Thailand Election Commission last Thursday, June 12, 2025. According to the petition coordinator, Kornkanok Makboon, the network began circulating petitions in early January and successfully exceeded the 50,000-signature minimum required for a referendum by May. The Thailand Cabinet originally passed the draft legislation in January. Deputy Finance Minister Julapun Amornvivat recently stated, as reported by iGaming Times, that the bill will be a “top priority” when Parliament reconvenes in July.

Proponents Highlight Economic Benefits

Proponents of the legislation actively promote the industry’s expected benefits, arguing that it would significantly boost the national economy and tourism sector. Projected benefits include:

• A substantial increase in tourism revenue, estimated to be between $3.5 billion (THB13.8 trillion) and $7 billion per year.
• More than $2.9 billion in new investment for each of the five proposed entertainment complexes.
• A 5% to 10% increase in tourist arrivals, with each visitor spending an estimated $1,296 to $1,945.
• The creation of 9,000 to 15,300 new jobs within the sector.
• Up to $1.1 billion in annual tax revenue for the government.

Activists Warn of Social Risks, Demand Public Mandate

However, anti-casino activists remain unconvinced by these economic arguments, primarily citing concerns about potential social harms. Wasinee Sonsaeb of the Youth Network Against Gambling expressed strong reservations, stating, as reported by iGaming Times, that legal casinos could make gambling more accessible to younger people. She argued that “Legalising casinos and online gambling today would be handing down a sinful legacy to our children,” adding that “The voices of youth must be taken seriously in this national debate.”

Sonsaeb also directly challenged the argument that Singapore, often cited as a model for Thailand’s casino aspirations, did not conduct a referendum before legalising casinos. She stated, as reported by iGaming Times, that “Singapore spent a decade conducting thorough research and public consultation before making its decision,” and criticised what she views as a tendency “to cherry-pick only the aspects of foreign models that serve one’s agenda while ignoring the rest is irresponsible.”

Thanakorn Khomkrit, secretary-general of Thailand’s Stop Gambling Foundation, argued that a referendum is a logical next step in the process, regardless of the outcome. He believes, as reported by iGaming Times, that it would provide the government with “a clear mandate from the people.” Khomkrit suggested that if the majority of Thailand residents were to vote in favour of casino resorts, it would “reduce public resistance and give investors confidence in the legal framework supporting casino developments.”

The Electoral Commission now has 30 days to verify the nearly 54,000 signatures before officially forwarding the petition to the Office of the Secretariat of the Cabinet for further review. The outcome of this verification process and the government’s subsequent response will be crucial in determining the future legislative path of the controversial casino bill, as the debate continues to intensify between economic proponents and social critics.