No serious observer disputes that Thailand must embrace artificial intelligence. AI is transforming economies, industries and labour markets around the world. The question is not whether the country should invest in AI, but whether the TH-AI Passport scheme represents the right investment.
The Anutin 2.0 government recently promoted the 1.6-billion-baht project as a means to expand access to premium AI tools and equip 5 million Thais with digital skills. Yet the scheme has drawn criticism from AI specialists, technology professionals and academics. Their concerns deserve to be heard.
Spending 1.6 billion baht on one-year subscriptions to foreign AI services is neither nation-building nor capacity building. It is a temporary subsidy. The same budget could have strengthened digital infrastructure, workforce development and Thai-language AI capabilities that would continue to benefit the country long after the subscriptions expire.
The government can look to our neighbour as a model for sustainable partnership. The Singaporean government partnered directly with OpenAI to bring investment, jobs, technical expertise and AI talent into the country. Thailand's TH-AI Passport, launched by Digital Economy and Society Minister Chaichanok Chidchob, merely purchases temporary access to technology developed elsewhere. In short, it is renting AI services with an annual membership fee.
The government calls the TH-AI Passport an investment in human capital. Many questions remain unanswered by the ministry. How many participants are expected to gain marketable skills, increase their income or improve their productivity? And if those targets are missed, who will be held accountable? Public money should not be spent on hope alone.
Another question involves transparency. Critics have asked why a scheme centred on access to existing AI platforms requires intermediary arrangements at all, and whether taxpayers are receiving the greatest possible value from every baht spent. These concerns may ultimately prove unfounded, but they warrant clear answers and full transparency.
Instead of addressing these substantive issues, the government has pointed to opinion polls showing public support for the programme. Such surveys, regardless of their findings, do not answer the questions being raised, and it is increasingly worrying that the government has tried to rebuff criticism with popularity from opinion surveys. After all, the issue is whether this is the best use of public funds -- not a popularity contest.
Leaving aside questions about the survey's methodology, let's assume the findings are accurate. Even then, public opinion cannot substitute for sound policymaking. A favourable poll does not give the government licence to spend 1.6 billion baht without adequately addressing the concerns raised by many AI and digital-economy experts.
The government still has an opportunity to strengthen public confidence by fully disclosing the rationale, assumptions and expected outcomes behind the project. It should welcome scrutiny rather than regard it as an obstacle.
If the ministry and the government press ahead while dismissing legitimate concerns over value for money, transparency and long-term national benefit, the ultimate cost of the TH-AI Passport will be measured not merely in a wasted budget, but in bankrupt trust.
