Casinos unlikely to promote tourism

May 5, 2025: Sport stadiums and exhibition halls could generate good revenue streams, but casinos?

The Paetongtarn government’s insistence on including exclusive gambling in its planned Entertainment Complex is not logical for obvious reasons.

First, casinos will NOT draw a huge number of tourists. Government leaders say it themselves that only mega-rich people with proven wealth (not “make-believe” money in their bank accounts) would be allowed to enter. The question is, how many people are there in the world who are that wealthy?

How many Elon Musks are there in the world who would think “Let’s go to Thailand so I can gamble.”? Compare that to the guaranteed visits by backpackers and ordinary tourists flooding Thailand every year attracted by Songkran, food, beaches and varying exotic cultures.

When not enough Elon Musks of the world are coming, leniency will be tolerated and then grow. Online gambling will take advantage of loopholes and before we know it many Thai kids will get the access.

The Paetongtarn administration’s tourism argument is virtually an assumption that every Elon Musk loves to gamble, and that they will come to Thailand to do so. The government has forgotten one thing, the possibility that maybe just half of superrich people in the world like to play in the casino and maybe only half of them would choose Thailand over Las Vegas.

And talking about Las Vegas, who go there to play slot machine and blackjack? A great majority of them are risk takers hoping to get rich, not the people who are already rich.

Great sporting facilities could help Thailand become the host of key events. If managed properly, promoted suitably and supported solidly by the government, they admittedly can have a promising future.

Exhibition halls are also great, but don’t we have them already? The same goes for concert venues. Yes, they can bring in a good number of visitors if managed well. But do they need casinos to exist alongside them? No.

Did Taylor Swift reject Thailand because we didn’t have a casino? No. Do Wimbledon or UCL audiences make their decisions to travel based on whether they can gamble or not? No.

From statements of government leaders as well as Thaksin Shinawatra, legitimate gambling would account for 10% of the Entertainment Complex. Anyone investing that much money definitely would want to recoup it. And they certainly can’t rely on the Elon Musks in order to achieve that.

Classic flirting by Palang Pracharath

May 4, 2025: If rumours swirl about your opposition party ready to join the government, the first rule is keep them alive.

In other words, a total denial is a no-no. The second rule is throw in a suggestion that if you do join in the future, it would be for the country’s best interest.

You flirt by playing hard to get. But not so hard, remember. It’s a trick that all opposition parties do best.

Unless it’s utterly and absolutely hopeless, don’t slam the door shut. The photo of Pheu Thai and Bhumjaithai leaders walking hand in hand is nothing. Just keep in mind the picture of Pheu Thai and Move Forward big bosses beaming together and forming mini hearts together after the last general election.

Criticise the Palang Pracharath Party if you will, but it is observing these rules to the last letter. Instead of unequivocally saying “No, we will never support Pheu Thai after spending all our lives fighting it”, Palang Pracharath is leaving the door ajar.

And they are doing it with a near-perfect mixture of criticism and possibility of a U-turn. Paetongtarn Shinawatra is not a good prime minister and we can’t support her, Palang Pracharath says. But yes, we have been contacted. If we join, we will in effect support the one who we think is bad. But it would be fine if acceptable changes happen.

Exact words (by a Palang Pracharath deputy leader): Don’t let me tell you who contacted Gen Prawit (Wongsuwan). I was contacted, too. There was a real contact. We were told that if we wanted to do it, everyone (who is a Palang Pracharath member) must go. Gen Prawit (the Palang Pracharath leader) said we would not join, as joining would mean we support the one who (we believe) is incapable of running the country. But it’s okay if there are adjustments (in the future) that benefit the nation.”

Why 14th Floor "didn't make sense"

May 3, 2025: Alleged discrepancies may feature in the court inquiry into the “medical treatment” of Thaksin Shinawatra.

According to hardline conservative Warong Dechgitvigrom, there are questions revolving around the claims that Thaksin was critically ill, so much so that he had to be sent to the Police Hospital and stay on the 14th floor.

Here are the questions: Was there an ambulance involved, normal in a case of medical emergency? Who made the decision to send Thaksin to the Police Hospital, a senior Corrections Department doctor or a junior doctor working on a shift?

Why did Thaksin go straight to the 14th floor which was basically for a VIP patient requiring rehabilitation, not a gravely-ill man needing proper and emergency ICU-type equipment and a troop of medical experts working at full throttle?

If an operation was performed, when exactly and how was Thaksin’s conditions at the time? Medical principles tend to avoid an operation on a critically-ill person unless it is extremely necessary or a life-or-death matter.

What kind of a medical episode warrants a 180-day stay at the Police Hospital, not the Corrections Department’s hospital which has a lot of modern equipment being able to do many things including the CT scan?

Such a long stay only meant that the patient was so ill he could not get out of bed. Did Thaksin’s arms and legs shrink like those of every patient who could not walk or exercise for 180 days?

If a surgery was performed, why did they allow him to keep on staying on the 14th floor? He should have been moved to a post-surgery rehabilitation room as part of a normal post-operation procedure.

How about the visits? If Thaksin’s life was hanging by a thread, there must be throngs of visitors, mustn’t there? Who visited him during those 180 days?

The above are justifiable questions. Here are some more: From the declaration of him being an emergency case to the day he was released from the Police Hospital, there must be plenty of official and medical records along the way. Where are they, what did they say, when were they made, who prepared them and who signed them?

14th Floor inquiry can set legal precedent

May 2, 2025:It could go down to credibility of evidence and, rarely, how judges “feel” about it.

PM’s Office Minister Chusak Sirinil said the Paetongtarn government is not worried about potential trouble concerning the legal treatment of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister’s father. According to Chusak, it was the Corrections Department’s full responsibility which was carried out through established procedures.

In other words, Chusak believes that even if it was decided that Thaksin was not actually jailed, political damage would not be widespread to the point of affecting the prime minister and her entire Cabinet.

“The court’s involvement is good, I think, because this matter can finally be put to rest,” he said. However, Chusak, responding to a reporter’s question, went on to admit that it would be a rare case of official documents versus public feelings.

There are those who think the stay at the 14th floor of the Police Hospital is a form of detention which took place while an inmate was ill, and there are others who believe that the stay was an illegal privilege given to Thaksin, Chusak admitted.

Reading between the lines, the inquiry could feature a showdown between documentary evidence, which is not hard to find to back the former argument, and prevalent feelings that while such evidence may look authentic, it was meant to help Thaksin evade real jail.

Judges often give importance to tangible evidence, and, normally, less attention is given to “feelings”. This case, however, involves overwhelming feelings that something was not quite right in the apparently-lawful creation of evidence.

What were those artefacts doing in US museum?

May 1, 2025: Make no mistake, the “return” was good. But how did they get there in the first place?

This is the news: “Four ancient statues of the Lord Buddha and his incarnation, which were smuggled out of Thailand more than 60 years ago and exhibited at the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, are to be returned.”

The story, basically the official line reported similarly around the world, went on to describe the process of decision makings leading to the return to the country that owned them more than half a century ago.

It would seem like a noble process if we ignored the fact that something “smuggled” was equivalent to something “stolen” and its return to its rightful owner should not have involved such complicated layer-upon-layer agreements.

Yet it appeared that, in seeking their return, Thailand had to seek help from the US Department of Homeland Security. It’s like a thief broke into your house and your stolen valuables turned up inside the neighbour’s showcase and you have to humbly ask the neighbour to give them back to you.

The neighbour, who must have spent quite a lot of money acquiring the items, then will have two choices. First, the valuables will be immediately returned. No question asked.

Or he or she will go through a lengthy process of answering the following questions: Did we buy stolen goods and put them on display? How come we weren’t aware of that? Should we return them, since they are important to the owner’s religion and culture and we are Christian anyway, and the owner has been crying for its return for years already?

What is the right thing to do, and how quickly should we do it?

Daily updates of local and global events by Tulsathit Taptim