The Election Commission disclosed that among 51 political parties, many have campaign policies that are not as presented, with unclear budget sources that risk affecting the country's financial and fiscal discipline and may lead to rising public debt. The New Alternative Party did not comply with the Election Commission's announcement.
On 3 Feb 2026 at 17:30, the Election Commission Office released recommendations and observations from the Election Commission (EC) and the Policy Review Committee concerning the spending policies of 51 political parties as advertised, under the authority of the Political Parties Act B.E. 2560 (2017), Section 57, as follows: 1. Naming of party policies according to the prescribed form: parties should provide policy names in the policy schedule consistent with those publicly advertised on various platforms; some policies were vague or ambiguous in their advertising. 2. Budget amounts required and sources of funding: the budget amount and funding sources are the most fundamental issues. Most party policies did not clearly specify funding sources or only stated the use of the state budget without explaining how the policies would be implemented. Party policy formulation should consider and systematically analyze state budgeting and financial principles to ensure feasibility, fiscal sustainability, and legal compliance. The following suggestions and observations are presented by issue.
Issue 1: Specifying budget amounts per policy. The budget and funding sources parties plan to use vary, including annual amounts, total amounts over four years of government tenure, and per-project amounts. This variation makes direct comparison of totals among parties difficult. It is therefore recommended that parties specify amounts and policy implementation periods uniformly to assist voters in decision-making. Detailed review of budget amounts, funding sources, and timelines per party policy is necessary.
Issue 2: Specifying funding sources per policy. Parties should clearly explain their funding sources, such as: 1) State budget, 2) Borrowing under the Public Debt Management Act B.E. 2548 (2005) and its amendments, 3) Operations under Section 28 of the State Fiscal and Financial Discipline Act B.E. 2561 (2018), 4) Various funds, 5) Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), and 6) Others (to be specified), such as revenue loss from tax reductions (Tax Expenditure) or off-budget funds. Some parties mentioned sources like tax collection, tax base expansion, increased taxes, state enterprise profits, funds from independent agencies, private companies, or fees, but it is unclear how these funds would be obtained or spent, whether directly or through the budget system, or via legislation, and how they comply with the State Fiscal and Financial Discipline Act B.E. 2561. The following suggestions and observations about funding sources are offered.
Regarding use of state budget funds under the annual expenditure framework, parties should specify the fiscal year when policies will begin and require funding, e.g., fiscal year 2026 or 2027. For policies implemented immediately in 2026 or with spending in 2027, the adequacy of funds and related budget regulations should be considered, including central budget or contingency reserves, which currently have limited amounts. Additionally, parties should detail budget management methods, such as plans for increased tax revenue or spending cuts if expenditures exceed initial budgets. Policies proposing reduced annual expenditure budgets or deficit reduction should clearly state implementation methods that comply with relevant laws and budget preparation guidelines.
Regarding use of funds under Section 28 of the State Fiscal and Financial Discipline Act B.E. 2561, which allows state agencies to undertake activities or projects with government compensation for expenses or revenue losses, such actions must be within legal authority and agency objectives, aiming to restore or stimulate the economy, enhance occupational capacity, improve quality of life, or aid disaster or sabotage victims. Implementation must follow legal procedures and budget limits, including relevant Cabinet resolutions such as those from 21 Nov 2023 on measures supporting farmers and 9 Dec 2025 on supervising Section 28 projects. Fiscal burdens must remain within the total outstanding limit, currently set at 32% of the annual expenditure budget by the Fiscal Policy Committee.
Using borrowed funds for policy implementation must comply with the Public Debt Management Act B.E. 2548 and its amendments, the State Fiscal and Financial Discipline Act B.E. 2561 Section 50, and related debt-incurring and management provisions. Debt burdens must not exceed legal limits. Using funds from the Thailand Future Fund (TFFIF) through state enterprises with future income must be carefully considered based on their financial status and comply with relevant laws, including the Public Debt Management Act. Detailed project information must be fully disclosed as required by law.
Regarding funds from Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), consideration must align with the Public-Private Partnership Act B.E. 2562 (2019). Private sector partners with capacity or relevant businesses should invest in operations with appropriate benefit-sharing that does not harm the state, prioritizing public benefit. Projects must be detailed fully according to legal requirements.
For other funding sources, such as policies involving tax measures or adjustments, parties should specify details clearly, considering fiscal policy and impacts on government revenue collection, which affect annual budget preparation and constraints on national development plans and strategies. Tax reduction or exemption policies, like personal or corporate income tax cuts, should specify state revenue losses to comply with Section 32 of the State Fiscal and Financial Discipline Act B.E. 2561. Policies requesting allocations from tax revenue or remitted income, such as from the Government Lottery Office or excise taxes, must comply with Section 25 of the same Act. Revenue earmarking for specific agency use is prohibited except under legal authority or necessary legislation allowing agencies to retain revenue, only when essential and beneficial for agency functions.
Issue 3: Overall budget clarity for all policies. The required budget per policy and total for all projects should be clear and funding sources consistent. The observed policy vagueness results from Issue 2, as unclear funding sources mean nearly all parties lack detailed fund source breakdowns supporting expenditure totals.
3. Cost-effectiveness and policy benefits. Some party proposals, though beneficial short-term, may cause long-term harm, such as unconditional debt suspension or forgiveness, which can reduce debtor financial discipline motivation (moral hazard). This impacts targeted, comprehensive debt resolution and should be accompanied by measures enhancing income skills to encourage positive debtor behavior, with tailored measures per debtor group. Additionally, policies should be feasible, clearly operationalized, include cost-benefit analyses covering budget and tax expenses, and align with medium-term fiscal frameworks to maintain fiscal discipline and avoid excessive fiscal burdens.
4. Policy impact and risks. Most party policies involve budget spending characterized more as recurrent expenditure than investment, potentially affecting government agencies’ plans and national economic growth. Medium-term fiscal plans for 2027–2030 project public debt-to-GDP ratios rising to 69.36% in 2027 and 69.78% in 2028, indicating that a new government cannot significantly increase deficit spending to fund campaign promises. Parties with such costly policies may not fully implement them, as this would breach the 70% debt-to-GDP limit under fiscal discipline frameworks, leaving no fiscal space to handle economic volatility risks. This raises the risk of credit rating downgrades for Thailand, which could reduce investor confidence domestically and internationally, increase government borrowing costs, trigger capital outflows, and weaken the baht. The following suggestions and observations are offered.
Impact on fiscal stability: Overall, party campaign policies focus on short-term economic stimulus rather than long-term growth, such as reducing living costs and universal welfare, emphasizing immediate tangible results for citizens. These require substantial budgets, both direct state budget disbursements and operations through other government agencies like state financial institutions or off-budget funds, increasing recurrent expenditure burdens and public debt growth, which the state must repay in the future. Additionally, under expanding recurrent expenditure budgets, parties’ income policies often propose tax relief or exemptions, potentially reducing revenue collection and pressuring the state to increase borrowing to cover deficits, which may push public debt-to-GDP ratios above 70%, increasing fiscal risks.
Impact on government expenditure: Welfare policies, such as subsidized electricity, public transport fares, support for elderly care or bedridden patients, and increased subsidies for seniors, disabled persons, and newborns, represent ongoing recurrent expenses that must be continued annually, increasing recurrent expenditure burdens. Currently, recurrent spending accounts for about 70% of the annual expenditure budget.
Impact on state revenue: Tax reduction or exemption policies proposed to ease citizens' financial burdens narrow the government's tax base, contrary to the medium-term fiscal plan for 2027–2030. If campaign policies proceed without expanding new revenue bases (tax and non-tax), Thailand will face persistent fiscal deficits and fail to reduce deficits to below 3.0% of GDP by 2029 as targeted in the medium-term fiscal plan.
Impact on public debt: Policies requiring large, continuous budget spending will force the government to maintain deficit fiscal policies for several years, making deficit reduction difficult and pushing the public debt-to-GDP ratio above the 70% ceiling (projected at 69.36% for fiscal year 2027). Policies involving obligations under Section 28 of the State Fiscal and Financial Discipline Act, such as debt reduction, suspension, forgiveness, economic stimulus, direct subsidies to citizens, income guarantees, production subsidies, and targeted welfare, pose risks that may lead to future credit rating downgrades.
In cases of large-scale state budget expenditures classified as investment projects with budgets of 500 million baht or more involving procurement, corruption risk assessments and appropriate risk management measures must be conducted in line with guidelines from the Office of the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission.
5. Other suggestions and observations: Party policy formulation should ensure legal compliance and thorough impact assessments, adhering to national and international laws to enable proper budget allocation.
Reporters noted that the Policy Review Committee provided general observations covering all 51 parties, to avoid sparking campaign conflicts between parties and protect the professional duties of committee members who are from government agencies.
Specifically, the New Alternative Party submitted 32 additional policies to the Election Commission, violating the EC announcement on the criteria and procedures for reviewing spending policies used in advertising by political parties B.E. 2568 (2025), Article 4, which requires parties to report to the EC at least 20 days before the general election. Furthermore, some policies publicly presented by the New Alternative Party in various locations may violate the Constitution-related Election Act B.E. 2561 (2018) and its second amendment B.E. 2566 (2023), Articles 73, 74, 132, and the Political Parties Act B.E. 2560, Article 22.
The New Alternative Party is led by Mr. Rachen Trakoolwiang as party leader, with Mr. Mongkolkitti Suksintharanon as the prime ministerial candidate.