Pukkamon Nunarnan’s Bold Critique: Unveiling Inequality in Thailand’s 2026 Provincial Budget

In a reverberating criticism that echoed through the parliament chambers yesterday, Pukkamon Nunarnan, an outspoken People’s Party MP often referred to by her moniker “Lisa,” lambasted the government’s colossal 26.5 billion baht provincial budget. As the numbers were tossed around the room on this third day of the fiscal budget debate for 2026, Lisa boldly wielded her words against the Interior Ministry’s budget, pointing out glaring disparities that seem to be growing roots deeper than ever across the nation.

With the deftness of a seasoned orator, Lisa illuminated a worrying trend using World Bank data, illustrating that an estimated 70% of national expenditure showers upon Bangkok, effectively widening the yawning chasm between urban and rural growth. Her rhetoric painted a vivid picture: more than half of Thailand’s provinces, especially those nesting along the borders and cloistered in the furthest south, linger in the shadows of development. The promises that once danced on the lips of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinwatra to turn Thailand into a vast landscape of opportunities now seem like mere whispers in the wind, lost amidst the clangor of unmet expectations.

The budgetary allocations, Lisa bemoaned, still cling stubbornly to outdated paradigms, disproportionately favoring infrastructure expansions such as roads, bridges, and lighting. She drew a fine line between these projects and real enhancements to the quality of life, suggesting that these allocations serve larger, more affluent provinces, thereby escalating the already formidable gap of inequality.

The fiery critic didn’t stop there. The annual 700 million baht designated for provincial governors came under her scrutiny. These governors, appointed through a top-down approach by the Interior Ministry, she argued, oftentimes operate with little genuine accountability to the public and, due to frequent rotations, harbor only a fleeting understanding of local reverberations and needs.

Lisa cited examples like Kamphaeng Phet, Phichit, Nakhon Sawan, and Uthai Thani—provinces where towering investments eclipse the more crucial sphere of human development initiatives. In the deep South, where 1.2 billion baht is earmarked for brick and mortar projects, funds for improving quality of life or education seem conspicuously absent.

Meanwhile, the northern regions such as Bueng Kan, Nong Bua Lam Phu, and Amnat Charoen appear to have slipped through the governance cracks, plagued by meagre healthcare access and a void where solutions for doctor shortages should stand. Why, she questioned, do funds flow like a river towards road and bridge construction while the local communities are gasping for educational and health improvements?

The Southern provinces dotted along the stunning coastlines of the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman Sea fare no better, as budgets of 5 billion baht are primarily funneled into tourism-centric infrastructure rather than fostering creativity or responding to local aspirations and miseries.

Lisa called out the entrenched political power dynamics that invariably tip the scales favorably towards high-profile construction projects. Her poignant appeal advocated for the dispersion of budgeting authority, placing it squarely into the hands of local administrative bodies better attuned to the rhythm and needs of their communities.

The passionate discourse moved the focus to the systemic stranglehold of the current budgetary allocation system, which Lisa insists, hinders genuine decentralization. It leaves swaths of people disadvantaged, seemingly forgotten in the march towards progress.

This vibrant and, some might say, audacious critique sets the stage for a national reflection on budget priorities and governance. As debates continue, the push for change hustles forwards, hoping to propel everyone—not just the privileged few—towards the promising horizon that was heralded by lofty campaign pledges.