In the vibrant heart of Bangkok, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was at the helm, launching the much-anticipated 10,000-baht handouts at a ceremony inside the historic Government House on a sunny September 25th. This moment, captured vividly by Chanat Katanyu’s lens, was more than just a typical day in the capital—it was a game changer in the landscape of socioeconomic support.
However, in the midst of celebration, controversy was brewing. Activist Sonthiya Sawasdee was making waves with a new set of documents, reinforcing his petition to the Constitutional Court against the Pheu Thai Party’s handling (or, as he claims, mishandling) of their bold election promise—a 10,000-baht digital wallet scheme. His argument? The current handouts might help the marginalized and vulnerable, but they miss the digital mark promised during the heated election campaigns.
Let’s rewind to last year’s high-stakes campaign drama, where the Pheu Thai Party raised eyebrows and hopes by proposing a pioneering digital wallet initiative. This plan, they touted, would send 10,000 baht — electronically! — to a potential 50 million people aged over 16. An economic stimulus through digital means was their early Christmas promise to the masses. But instead of digital bucks, there was a short burst of cash flow, handed out to 14.5 million state welfare cardholders and disabled individuals from September 25 to 30. And yes, the chattering PromptPay machines bore witness to each transaction.
In a determined stride, Mr. Sonthiya submitted his papers on a bustling Monday. One crucial document questioned whether he had the right to beseech the Constitutional Court directly, bypassing the traditional first stop: the ombudsman. Due to delays in collecting evidence, the activist took this bold move. His rallying cry? “Pheu Thai, keep your promises!” He warned that their lack of follow-through, unlike the handouts of the prior Prayut Chan-o-cha government designed to handle the economic fallout from Covid-19, seemed not to align with their bold campaigning to resuscitate the economy.
The twist? Mr. Sonthiya wasn’t just crying foul; he was alleging legal violation. Promises, especially election ones, are not just words; they’re binding. He described the 40 million people, ages 16 to 45, targeted for this digital upgrade but left empty-handed, as victims of deceit. An earlier allegation by the Election Commission (EC) even suggested the Pheu Thai Party broke the law but was subsequently scratched off the board.
With a dramatic flair, Mr. Sonthiya cautioned that should the Constitutional Court lean towards his petition, the EC would not escape unscathed. Meanwhile, the Centre for Economic and Business Forecasting reported that a whopping 80% of the recent cash recipients had already spent it all—a testament to either the pressing financial needs or the fleeting joy of unplanned shopping sprees.
In a world where promises are often as transient as a Bangkok sunset, only time and the verdict of the Constitutional Court will tell if Pheu Thai’s pledge remains a dream deferred or a blueprint for future economic policies.
This handout is a disaster! It’s just a bandaid, not a long-term solution.
I disagree. It’s a necessary boost for those who need it most.
Sure, but what happens when the money runs out? People need more sustainable support.
I’m with you, Jane. It feels like a way to distract from broken promises.
A government cannot just throw money at problems! Isn’t this how we end up with economic instability?
Not at all. Helping people in immediate need is crucial for maintaining social peace.
Short-term aid may help but could lead to long-term issues if not well-managed. It’s a fine balance.
The real question is why promise digital and deliver cash? It sounds like mismanagement to me.
Absolutely, Mila. They should have followed through on the digital aspect. We’re in the 21st century!
Probably because implementing a digital system is more complex and they weren’t ready. Still no excuse!
If the EC knew about this earlier allegation, why wasn’t it properly investigated? Politics are always fishy.
The EC’s actions often reflect political pressures rather than judicial independence. Sad but true.
Pheu Thai should know better than to sell empty dreams. Such tactics should have consequences.
But what politicians don’t do that? They’re all the same.
Still, accountability is crucial. At least make them answer for false promises.
An 80% spend rate showcases dire need, more so than careless spending. These people need real economic reform.
Exactly! That statistic isn’t a bragging point; it’s a cry for help.
I received the handout and it helped my family greatly. Let’s not be too quick to judge!
This situation reminds me of robbing Peter to pay Paul. What’s next, another tax hike?
Perhaps, but let’s focus on fixing the core issues first.
Isn’t this attempt just to prevent bigger meltdowns? Look around, economies are collapsing everywhere.
I worry about the precedent this sets for future governments. Promises mean nothing if unfulfilled.
Honestly, the digital wallet was such a cool idea—disappointed it fell through.
Seriously, TrailBlazer. The potential for innovation was huge! Missed opportunity.
I doubt the Constitutional Court will make any real waves, probably just more political theatre.
Sadly true, but it’s worth watching. Maybe they’ll surprise us.
No matter how it ends, there’s a lesson here: transparency and commitment need to go hand in hand.
Agreed, Jane. Watching how this unfolds should keep politicians on their toes.