Agung Bagus Prastiksa Linggih
BaliPost has published comments from Agung Bagus Prastiksa Linggih, chairman of the Bali Provincial Legislative Council (DPRD-Bali), who has used the ongoing crackdown on illegal cockfighting to reopen a long-standing debate on legalizing casino operations on the Island.
Linggih, the Chairman of Commission II of the DPRD, who is also known as Ajus Linggih, believes that it is time for a serious academic review of the viability of operating gambling casinos in Bali, taking into consideration the issues of the potential added tax revenues resulting from legalized gambling, how casinos could be properly managed, and any potential economic benefit from casino operations to the benefit of the people of Bali.
The young politician from the Golkar Faction is of the view that legal gambling would generate valuable tax revenues for the province and is preferable to the current situation of sub rosa illegal gambling activities.
“Instead of slowly, quietly legalizing cock fighting, the bold step of legalizing casinos would be better. The province would earn tax revenues that could be used to build valuable infrastructure and develop talented human resources,” said Linggih on Tuesday, 27 October 2026,
Ajus Linggih continued, saying the idea of a casino in Bali should be discussed again amid the current polemic surrounding banning traditional cockfighting on the Island. He also said the issue of legalized gambling should not be seen solely through a legal lens, but also examined in terms of potential management policies, control and supervision, and its potential value to the Island’s economy.
He then highlighted the potential profits and tax contributions to be derived from legalized gambling, money that is now lost when gambling takes place on a non-formal, illegal basis. Rather than profits and revenues flowing “under the table,” he said it would be better if any financial benefit could be generated for the public’s welfare.
Ajus Linggih recommended that if casino operations were allowed, gambling could ideally include games of chance with cultural connections to Balinese culture. In addition to cockfighting, games such as “ceki and ceblok” could be adapted to fit Balinese traditions.
At this stage, legalizing gambling remains a political concept in its early stages. It requires further study of the legal and social implications, particularly as regards safeguarding public interest and aligning with all Central Government policies and regulations.
Ajus said the substantial need for public funds must be understood, and how funds generated from legal casino operations might best be used for public betterment.
For example, the Legislator mentioned the opportunity for tuition-free education through university level with “pocket money” amounting to Rp 1.5 million each month in the existing “One-Family-One-Graduate” (“Satu Keluarga Satu Sarjana (SKSS)) program. By Ajus’ calculations, tuition-free support would cost Rp 4 to 5 trillion to cover the entire Island of Bali.
In addition to educational needs, Ajus suggested considering payment for Class III Insurance Coverage for all Balinese, costing an estimated Rp 2.2 trillion.
He defended legalized casinos as having the fiscal potential to meet various educational, public health, human resources development, cultural preservation, and infrastructure development needs.
Whether projected revenues can meet the community’s social needs still requires detailed calculations.
For comparison, Ajus alluded to Singapore and Macau, where legalized gambling yields Rp. 45 trillion and Rp 47 trillion, respectively. These figures do not include indirect foreign exchange benefits from hotel and restaurant sales, along with other supporting tourist services.
Returning to Macau as a comparative case study, Ajus said legalized gambling generates a per capita allowance of Rp 21 million for every resident. Meanwhile, in Singapore, the Marina Bay Sands Casino Complex is considered an important component of Singapore’s tourism industry,
Moreover, Ajus said he believes casino operations in neighboring countries warrant close study to understand how Bali might successfully integrate existing legal, fiscal, societal, and tourism differences to accommodate legalized casino gambling.
Legalizing casino gambling in Bali would also help diversify the province’s tax revenue sources. Added tax revenues, said Ajus, would allow the Provincial Administrator to better focus on measures to curb the loss of agricultural lands to villa and hotel development in Bali. Bountiful tax revenues from legalized casino operations would give Bali’s leaders the financial latitude to impose a much-needed moratorium on new hotel and villa development.
Bali would also need to carefully consider implementing legal limitations on casino operations, including banning low-income and impoverished individuals from the premises. Such limitations would also need to be supplemented with other measures to protect consumers, prevent gambling addiction, and monitor financial transactions.
In short, whether casino operations should be legalized in Bali needs thorough examination and an objective discussion open to every level of society and all stakeholders.
In closing, Ajus emphasized: “Bali is not competing with other regions of Indonesia, but with other countries within ASEAN. At this point, only Indonesia lacks legal casinos. For sure, casinos (in Indonesia) need to be made available only for foreign tourists.”
Related Links
Bali Says “No” to Proposals for Casinos
Bali Police Bust Online Gambling Racket
Police Arrest a Gang of Grandmas in Lombok
Stay Informed on Bali Tourism-Related News: Subscribe to Bali Update
