BANGKOK, THAILAND – Anti-alcohol activists and victims of drunk-driving crashes planned to stage a protest at the Government House on Friday to oppose a government proposal to extend bar closing times to 4am and lift a long-standing afternoon alcohol sales ban.
Protest planned at Government House
Members of anti-alcohol NGOs and bereaved families said they would gather at Gate 5 of the Government House to deliver a petition and press Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul to halt the proposed changes. Chuwit Chantaros, coordinator of the Campaign to Protect from Alcohol Hazards, said about 100 demonstrators “would protest in front of Gate 5 of the Government House to hand over our petition.”
Organisers warned that the proposed liberalisation risked increasing road deaths and social harms and said economic arguments did not justify the public health costs.
What the government is proposing
The plan under discussion included two major changes: extending nationwide bar closing times from 2am to 4am and abolishing the existing ban on alcohol sales between 2pm and 5pm. Officials indicated the measures could be introduced in January, before any parliamentary dissolution.
The government is understood to be motivated by fiscal concerns, expecting the measures to generate additional tax revenue. Officials estimated potential income at around 500 billion baht, roughly 12.5 billion euros.
Current rules versus proposed change
Under current rules, only designated tourism zones such as Phuket, Chon Buri, Koh Samui and parts of Bangkok are permitted to stay open until 4am. Nationwide, alcohol sales are presently restricted between 2pm and 5pm and from midnight until 11am.
The proposed changes would remove those time restrictions across the country, effectively standardising later closing times and permitting afternoon sales.
Health advocates call for tighter controls
Public health campaigners urged the government to focus on stronger regulation rather than liberalisation. Thira Watcharapranee, director of the Stop Drink Network Thailand, said if amendments to the Entertainment Place Act of 1966 were to be considered, they should emphasise enforcement.
“If the government wants to change the Entertainment Place Act, it should concentrate on tougher controls, not liberalisation,” he said, pointing to more than 200,000 entertainment venues nationwide that, he argued, require better oversight. He also called for higher penalties for violations, including temporary closures of one to five years for serious offences.
Questions over who is driving the proposal
Chuwit expressed doubts about how concrete the government’s plans were, suggesting that reports of the changes could have been circulated by entertainment operators seeking looser rules. He added that, as a former health minister, Prime Minister Anutin should be aware of the public health implications. Chuwit also recalled a pledge from Deputy Prime Minister Sopon Saram not to introduce laws that would harm public health.
Timing and what comes next
Officials were expected to make a decision before the end of January, a timetable that alarmed campaigners who fear any relaxation could quickly translate into more alcohol-related road deaths and other harms.
The dispute highlighted a familiar policy dilemma: balancing short-term fiscal gains against potential long-term costs to public health and road safety. While the government cites significant potential tax revenue, activists insist stricter regulation and enforcement should take precedence over measures that would increase the availability of alcohol.
Demonstrators said they wanted clear commitments to safeguard public health rather than policies they believe would prioritise business interests. The coming days were likely to determine whether the proposals would proceed, be amended, or be shelved amid public pressure.