The atmosphere was charged in parliament on Thursday as Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin faced a rigorous cross-examination by opposition members, marking his inaugural skirmish defending the government’s headline policy—the digital wallet handout scheme.
Sirikanya Tansakul, the incisive deputy leader of the Move Forward Party, did not hold back as she interrogated the prime minister about the evolving nature of the digital wallet program and the broader economic strategies employed by the administration.
“I must extend my gratitude to the prime minister for his presence here in parliament; it signifies his acknowledgement of its importance. This marks the first instance of the prime minister facing questions from the opposition, and [I hope] it shan’t be the last,” she articulated with poignant clarity.
Tansakul expressed concerns regarding the inconsistency in the government’s announcements, pointing out the reduction in the number of eligible recipients from 50 million to 45 million. This adjustment, she noted, effectively slashes the requisite funds from 500 billion to 450 billion baht.
“The public is left in a state of confusion. The criteria and specifics seem ever-changing. Does this suggest the government is struggling to secure sufficient funding for the initiative?” she queried with a raised eyebrow.
Prime Minister Srettha, unfazed, acknowledged the pivotal role of parliament and asserted that he had no intentions of sidestepping opposition inquiries.
Addressing the reduced funding, he noted the administration’s reliance on precedent data from previous welfare schemes to predict the potential registrants, thereby enabling more precise allocation of resources. “We have meticulously deliberated on this matter to ensure the handout scheme aligns with established budgetary regulations,” he stated, with a reassuring tone.
The scheme’s primary objective, Srettha elucidated, is to stimulate economic activity in provinces languishing in economic stagnation, as opposed to the bustling cities. More comprehensive details about the program, he promised, will be unveiled on July 24.
Originally, the scheme envisaged dispensing 10,000 baht to each of the 50 million Thai citizens aged over 16. To qualify, recipients must earn no more than 70,000 baht monthly or 840,000 baht annually, with the stipulation that the funds be spent within the district indicated on their ID cards.
Deputy Finance Minister Julapun Amornvivat, who also chairs a sub-committee tasked with formulating the handout’s finer points, disclosed a proposal to allocate only 80% to 90% of the initial 500 billion baht budget. This recommendation emerged following a Fiscal Policy Office (FPO) study, which revealed that not all eligible individuals had registered for past welfare initiatives.
This reallocation would eliminate the need for loans from the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC), as initially contemplated, Julapun asserted.
He elaborated that funding for the project will be sourced from the fiscal budgets of 2024 and 2025, respectively. Specifically, 122 billion baht from the 2024 fiscal budget will be allocated to jumpstart the digital wallet scheme, supplemented by 43 billion baht redirected from budgets that may not be disbursed in a timely fashion.
In the 2025 fiscal budget plan, 152 billion baht is earmarked for the continued funding of the handout scheme, with an additional 132 billion baht expected to be diverted from unspent funds this fiscal year.
This back-and-forth between the Prime Minister and the opposition has not only brought the scheme into the limelight but also ignited conversations across the nation. Whether it will prove to be an economic catalyst or a contentious political gamble remains to be seen. One thing is certain, though: the nation’s eyes are closely watching every move.
I think the digital wallet scheme is a great idea to boost local economies. Many regions need this kind of stimulus.
But what about the potential for misuse? These kinds of schemes usually end up being poorly managed.
I agree with Anna. The potential benefits outweigh the risks. Mismanagement can be tackled with proper oversight.
Exactly, Linda. We shouldn’t dismiss a good policy because of a few bad apples. Strict monitoring can help.
Isn’t it just another way for the government to control us? They’re telling us where and how we can spend our own money.
How can they reduce the number of recipients so drastically? It feels like more political maneuvering than actual economic planning.
They reduced the numbers based on realistic expectations. Better to promise less and deliver, than overpromise and fail.
While that might be true, it also points to a lack of initial research and preparedness.
Exactly, Dr. E. It makes them look unreliable. Planning as you go is not how a government should operate.
The debate was enlightening. Sirikanya Tansakul did a fantastic job grilling the Prime Minister.
Agreed. It’s crucial for opposition to hold the government accountable, especially with such massive financial decisions.
Absolutely. But Srettha handled himself well too. He answered the tough questions competently.
This budget reallocation thing seems shady. Why can’t they just stick to one plan?
Budget allocations often fluctuate due to changing economic conditions. It’s not necessarily shady.
People need to understand that these funds are vital for economic rejuvenation in smaller provinces.
What a circus! This is just another example of politicians playing games with our money.
It’s not that simple. Economic policies are complex and require flexibility.
Whatever, expert75. Can’t trust any of them to have our best interests at heart.
I hope they provide more clarity soon. People have a right to know if they’ll receive support.
Indeed. Transparency is crucial here. Without it, public trust will wane.
Exactly. We need a clear roadmap, not vague promises.
Totally agree with both of you. Clarity and transparency are the keys to a successful policy.
This debate shows why strong opposition in parliament is essential. Keeps the government in check.
The 2024 and 2025 fiscal plans are ambitious. Let’s see if they can actually pull it off.
Why is there no discussion about the long-term implications of the digital wallet scheme?
Maybe because they don’t have a long-term plan? This looks more like a short-term fix than a sustainable solution.
Exactly my point. A short-term fix can lead to more problems down the road.
Couldn’t they have found a better way to allocate funds than a digital wallet? Feels too modern and inaccessible for many rural folks.
Digital wallets are actually quite practical. With proper education and infrastructure, it could work well even in rural areas.
Maybe, but it’ll take time. They should have a plan for that too.
I agree with Nancy. The future is digital. Better to start adapting now.
Does anyone know if other countries have implemented similar schemes? How did they fare?
The back-and-forth in parliament was fascinating. Makes me wonder how many more revisions they’ll make before rolling out this scheme.
Probably a few more. Policy-making is an iterative process.
I’m worried about how they’ll ensure people spend the money in their own districts. Sounds tough to monitor.