On a quiet morning at Wat Tha Luang Phon in Photharam district, the usual bustle of early shoppers and hawkers is there — but not the kind of busy the government had hoped to stir up. The Khon La Khrueng Plus co-payment scheme, a short-lived programme intended to subsidise everyday purchases from October 29 to December 31, was meant to be a welcome boost for both buyers and sellers. Instead, several small vendors in this corner of Ratchaburi have politely — and pointedly — declined to join. Their reasons read like a modern small-business survival guide: confusing registration steps, the terror of digital scams, and a simple wish to keep their mornings uncomplicated.
Sompong Topara is a character you can picture without trying hard: she opens her stall at 5 a.m., steam rising from a pot of soy milk while the pan sizzles for fresh Thai doughnuts. She sells comfort for pocket change — soy milk at 5 baht a bag, doughnuts eight for 10 baht — and usually pockets around 300 baht in profit by the time she closes at 8 a.m. “I want to join,” she admits, “but the process is too confusing.” Sompong’s confession is honest and quietly painful. She’s never really used more than the calling function on her phone and says she’d need her children’s help just to get through the registration steps.
Across the square, 53-year-old meatball vendor Namoay Suanthanu has arrived at the same verdict through a different route: distrust. She’s not anti-technology — she’s simply been burned. Namoay recalled a recent incident where a customer claimed to have transferred nearly 200 baht but never actually did. “I couldn’t do anything about it,” she says. “I know who it was, but I was afraid to say anything.” Since then she’s adopted a makeshift defence: loud alert sounds for incoming mobile payments so she can hear the confirmation from meters away. Even so, she says she won’t plug into another round of the co-pay scheme unless vendors have better safeguards.
Those two stories are representative rather than unique. Other shop owners at Wat Tha Luang Phon echo similar frustrations: the registration window felt short, the apps were fiddly, and instructional guidance almost non-existent. For many, the choice to opt out wasn’t ideological; it was pragmatic. When your stall nets 300 baht a day and you rely on routine and speed to survive, adding a confusing digital step — with the risk of fraud or wasted time — can easily tip the balance from “helpful subsidy” to “unnecessary headache.”
There’s an irony here worth noting. The Khon La Khrueng Plus programme was designed to nudge shoppers and sellers toward a faster, cashless economy while putting a little money back into the community. But around these stalls, the scheme exposed a digital divide: people who are comfortable navigating apps and QR codes, and people for whom a smartphone is primarily a phone. And when the paperwork feels like a puzzle and fraud protection feels absent, the understandable response is to stay out.
What might make a difference? Vendors in Photharam don’t need abstract assurances — they want practical solutions. Clear, step-by-step registration help; in-person booths where someone walks them through the app; longer sign-up windows; and stronger, visible anti-fraud mechanisms would change the conversation. Imagine a roaming support team visiting markets with tablets and patience, or simple printed guides in plain Thai that show the exact button sequence to accept a co-pay payment. For people like Sompong and Namoay, that kind of hands-on help could be the single change that turns confusion into participation.
Until those changes happen, many in Ratchaburi will continue operating as they always have — at dawn, with trusted rhythms, and a cautious eye on anything that smells like a scam. The refusal to join the co-payment scheme isn’t stubbornness so much as survival instinct. When the choice is between risking a complicated registration process and safeguarding a modest, reliable income, the modest income wins every time.
Policymakers might take note: helping communities go digital isn’t just about rolling out subsidies or apps. It’s about understanding the people on the ground — their routines, fears, and technical skills — and then designing support systems that meet them where they are. For now, the soy milk pot keeps simmering and the doughnuts keep frying at Wat Tha Luang Phon, proof that not every worthy initiative finds its audience without a little human help.
This is classic policy by spreadsheet: good intention, poor execution. If the government wanted uptake, they should have set up booths and trained people in person before launch. Instead they expect small vendors to become tech support for a smartphone era overnight.
Exactly — they’ve rolled out a digital safety net that has more holes than fabric. Taxpayer money for apps that confuse the people they’re meant to help feels wrong.
Thanks, Larry. And it’s not just wasteful, it’s risky; pushing cashless without fraud safeguards puts the most vulnerable at risk. Vendors will rightly refuse until the system proves it can protect them.
I work markets and I saw the same thing; people get one bad transfer and they never trust QR again. Fixing policy is about trust, not just tech specs.
Reading about Sompong made me sad but not surprised. My aunt refuses phones for payments for the same reasons, she just wants the morning to be simple. The government should meet people where they are, literally at the market stalls.
Nice sentiment, but ‘meet them where they are’ needs a budget and a timeline. Who trains the trainers, who pays for roaming support teams, and how do we measure success?
Good point A. Krit — community groups could volunteer, but the state must fund oversight. Otherwise it becomes a patchwork of half-baked help.
As someone who builds UX for payments, the registration flow you described is a nightmare for infrequent users. A physical QR scanner or one-tap tokens at market booths would reduce errors and fraud.
My dad is 72 and thinks a smartphone is a TV remote. You can’t blame sellers for ignoring schemes that demand digital fluency overnight. This is how digital divides widen, not close.
That generational gap is real, but it’s solvable with better design and education. Short videos, big buttons, and an option for assisted on-site registration would help massively.
I agree with the design fixes, but those fixes require political will. Without accountability, the same team will blame vendors for not ‘adapting’ next year.
Accountability means KPIs tied to vendor onboarding and fraud reduction, plus independent audits. Simple UX won’t cover governance failures.
I actually think nudging people towards cashless is mostly a good idea. Subsidies like Khon La Khrueng Plus can modernize commerce and boost traceability if managed properly. Saying no to technology because of fear is a luxury argument when there are broader benefits.
Calling fear a ‘luxury argument’ is tone-deaf. These vendors live day-to-day on small margins; a bad payment day can mean no food. Benefits you mention are long-term and abstract to them.
I didn’t mean to sound harsh — my point is the benefits are real but must be delivered in a way that doesn’t threaten livelihoods. That means staging and safeguards.
Staging? The scheme launched like a flash sale and expected vendors to catch up. Good intentions don’t excuse poor deployment or ignoring fraud stories.
This article is a microcosm of implementation gaps in many development projects. You can’t assume digital literacy; you need outreach, monitoring, and contingency plans. The recommendations at the end are low-cost and high-impact if implemented well.
Low-cost? Sending teams to every market sounds expensive to someone who watches budgets. Who will fund that, and how do you prevent it becoming a political photo-op?
Fund it by reallocating a fraction of the scheme’s total budget; transparency and third-party monitoring can prevent photo-op spending. It’s about priorities, not money shortage.
This sounds really confusing. Why can’t they just pay with cash like before? My grandma would be mad if she had to learn an app.
Kids and elders notice the same thing: convenience varies by person. Digital shouldn’t replace cash until everyone can choose what works for them.
Yeah, choices are good. Also the doughnuts sound yummy and corrupting my lunch plan.
I sell vegetables nearby and the paperwork alone would eat my morning. Vendors are surviving on routine; disrupting that for an uncertain payout is risky. I respect Sompong’s honesty about needing her kids’ help.
I’m Namoay from the article. The loud alert trick helps, but it’s not security. I won’t risk a scheme where a customer can claim a transfer and leave me helpless.
Thanks for speaking up, Namoay. Your real-life examples should be front and center in any redesign.
We’re a local NGO willing to set up training mornings at markets. But we need a formal invite from officials to access registration portals and coordinate schedules.
Data from similar rollouts show uptake increases only when on-the-ground assistance is available and fraud incidents are transparently reported. Subsidies alone don’t change behavior. Policy should be evidence-driven, not just technology-driven.
What good is data if the people in charge ignore it? ‘Evidence-driven’ sounds nice until a new minister wants fast headlines instead of slow planning.
True, and that’s why civil society and media must insist on follow-up metrics. Keep the pressure on post-launch evaluations.
As someone inside government planning, I can say timelines are tight but feedback is being collected. Implementing bodies are aware and considering extensions and in-person support.
Simple printed guides in Thai with pictures would solve half the problem instantly. Not everyone needs digital training; many just need the right button pointed out. Why is that so hard to do?
We can design those guides and distribute them free, but we need official branding and authorization so vendors trust the material is legitimate. Otherwise people think it’s a scam.
Exactly — credibility matters. When the pamphlet looks like a government printout, people listen more.
There is an ageism angle here: being ‘behind’ on tech is equated to being incompetent. That stigma will push older vendors further out. Policy needs to avoid shaming.
We don’t intend to shame; the goal is inclusion. That said, messaging matters and we’ll review our outreach tone to reduce any implied judgment.
Hope that’s sincere. Tone and small gestures like in-person help go a long way in building trust.
Markets are social institutions, not test labs. You can’t transplant a tech solution without cultural adaptation. I wish journalists asked vendors more than once — their skepticism is a rational defense.
I keep hearing that markets are ‘social’, but social systems change. If assistance is available and benefits are visible, many will adapt. It’s not all conservatism.
Adaptation requires trust, and trust costs time. Quick schemes that disappear after a quarter worsen cynicism.
Honestly, people fear being scammed because they already were scammed. Until there’s clear restitution, why volunteer to be a beta tester for government apps? It’s common sense to opt out.
Right. And saying ‘trust us’ without systems to reverse fraud is meaningless to someone earning 300 baht a day.
Exactly. Fix the consumer protection mechanisms first, then roll out incentives.