Poll Shows Thai Concerns Over Cost of Living Impact from Middle East War Divided Views on Oil Price Control

• A King Prajadhipok Institute poll finds that Thai people worry about the cost of living impact from the Middle East war. Regarding oil prices, opinions are closely divided between temporarily freezing prices and letting market mechanisms operate. The public expresses moderate satisfaction with government communication but also desires to see concrete response plans.

On 20 Mar 2026 GMT+7, the King Prajadhipok Institute released survey results on “Public attitudes toward the Middle East war and the government's energy policies.” The survey was conducted from 13-16 Mar 2026 GMT+7 among 2,000 people aged 18 and over, sampled nationwide. Key findings are as follows:

1. Given the war situation, if energy prices rise, what should the government prioritize first? (survey by X Line Today)

• 29.7% want a temporary price freeze.
• 28.2% prefer letting market forces operate and focusing on long-term measures.
• 23.4% support using taxes or the oil fund to reduce price burdens.
• 15.0% favor assistance only for highly affected groups.
• 3.7% are unsure.

This reflects a clear economic understanding split among the public: one side seeks immediate short-term relief to ease living costs, while the other recalls past lessons that broad price subsidies can create long-term fiscal burdens.

2. Nearly 70% of Thais worry about the war’s impact, while satisfaction with government communication just barely passes.

Impact of the Middle East war on Thailand

• 69.8% say they are quite or very worried.
• 21.2% are not very or not at all worried.
• 9.0% are unsure.

Government communication about the situation and potential impacts

• 50.4% say they are quite or very satisfied.
• 35.9% are not very or not at all satisfied.
• 13.7% are unsure.

Thais do not see the regional conflict as just foreign news but as a direct concern affecting daily life and living costs. The high worry rate also reveals the financial vulnerability of Thai households. While government communication passes marginally, the fact that one in three are dissatisfied signals a lack of clarity or timeliness in crisis communication. Public messaging now must build policy confidence rather than issuing daily measures to reduce panic.

3. Urban crisis: Nearly three-quarters of Bangkok residents want the government to cap oil prices, the highest among all regions.

• 74.1% in Bangkok.
• 57.0% in the Eastern region.
• 55.3% in the Northeast.
• 52.0% in the South.
• 43.5% in the Central region.
• 40.7% in the North.

This reflects that urban residents, especially in high living cost areas reliant on daily travel and energy use, are especially sensitive to energy price changes. Lower proportions in some regions may reflect differing cost structures and energy usage patterns. This is a critical warning to policymakers that without short-term measures to cushion market-driven price rises, the country’s main economic areas will be immediately and severely affected, potentially leading to widespread dissatisfaction.

4. No generational gap on cost concerns: all generations want the government to prioritize oil price caps.

• All generations rank “temporary energy price freeze” as their top priority, with Gen X highest (54.1%), followed by Gen Z (52.8%), Baby Boomers (52.0%), and Gen Y (48.2%).
• Second priorities vary: Gen Y favors tax or oil fund measures to reduce price burdens; Gen X prefers assistance targeted to highly affected groups; Gen Z and Baby Boomers are unsure.

Immediate energy impacts are felt across ages, but working-age groups (Gen Y and Gen X), the main taxpayers, recognize the need for fiscal tools beyond simple price subsidies.

In summary, the survey signals three simultaneous public messages: 1. Clear concern over foreign war impacts on living costs; 2. Some satisfaction with government communication but a desire for clear, actionable response plans; 3. Expectations for quick energy relief measures alongside calls for structural problem-solving.  

Therefore, to maintain public trust during this crisis, government policy should not rely on a single approach but demonstrate it can manage today’s impacts effectively while planning for the future.