Thailand’s bold plan to regulate sex work sparks heated debate
Thailand Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s government is stirring up controversy with a proposal to develop an entertainment complex aimed at formalising underground businesses—sex work included.
The plan is designed to bring these industries into the formal economy, making them taxable, and, in the long term, funding welfare programmes in education, public health, and infrastructure. But the proposal has ignited a fierce public debate.
At the forefront of this issue is Surang Janyam, director of the SWING organisation, which advocates for the rights of sex workers. She emphasises the need to decriminalise what many call “the world’s oldest profession,” pointing out that many sex workers are eager to contribute to the formal economy.
“During Covid, many sex workers were left without compensation or welfare. Over 50% of the 500 sex workers we spoke to expressed a desire to be part of the labour system and pay taxes.”
Brothel owners also back the idea, as legalisation would protect them from extortion and under-the-table payments.
Focus groups in Pattaya have shown unanimous support for the government’s plan, with businesses willing to pay taxes in exchange for legal benefits and protections. However, Surang clarified that the goal isn’t to legalise sex work but to decriminalise it by abolishing existing laws that criminalise the profession.
Critics argue that decriminalising sex work could worsen child exploitation and trafficking but Surang counters that there are already laws in place to tackle these issues. She stresses that participation in the formal system should be voluntary, allowing freelance workers to operate like small business owners, paying taxes on their earnings, reported The Nation.
Ultimately, public perception remains the biggest obstacle, with morality debates clouding the discussion. Surang believes that economic realities should take precedence over subjective morality.
“People need jobs and income. Morality is just an excuse to avoid tackling the real problem.”
