Isara Seriwatthanawut, Secretary-General of the King Prajadhipok Institute, views five reform points for the MPs' food budget system, proposing a prepaid card idea where MPs use only what they eat and return leftover funds to the treasury, insisting that saving budget is easy if corruption is eliminated.
On 28 March 2026, Isara Seriwatthanawut, Secretary-General of the King Prajadhipok Institute, posted on Facebook that the MPs' food budget is a reactive fix rather than a systemic solution. Recently, there has been discussion about MPs' food budget, with some parties bringing their own meals or buying food from parliamentary canteens. While this could be good if done daily over four years, in practice, food still must be prepared in full for each meeting day, so the budget usage remains the same. The result is leftover food, i.e., food waste. This is a familiar reactive solution in Thai politics because the root cause is not MPs bringing food from home, but the system itself.
Isara stated that providing food for MPs or meeting attendees over multiple meals is not wrong and is practiced worldwide. However, the issue lies elsewhere. The MPs' food budget is around 80 million baht per year, but actual spending is about 50 million baht, excluding commission food budgets of over 20 million baht annually. Usually, three meals are provided (breakfast, lunch, dinner), costing no more than 1,000 baht per person. If meetings extend past 8 p.m., two extra meals (dinner and late-night) are added, costing an additional 250 baht. Whether MPs eat or not, full meals are prepared at maximum amounts as a precaution, and leftovers are either discarded or donated.
Isara asked whether the system can be redesigned to be more efficient.
1. Change from communal catering to individual entitlement via prepaid cards (not exceeding 1,000 baht per day), usable with rotating vendors nationwide. MPs use only what they eat; leftover funds return to the treasury. This reduces budget spending, food waste, and boosts local economies. Those who decline this entitlement for the entire four-year term must declare so upfront and cannot change later. This would reveal how many people actually purchased food from the parliamentary canteen last week.
2. Another important aspect is transparency. The food budget should be publicly disclosed daily and per meal, allowing the public to verify actual spending, leftovers, and how they are managed.
3. High costs do not stem only from the food itself. I once spoke with a former parliamentary vendor who said they must hire labor only on meeting days (twice a week) and acknowledged that MPs taking food outside the dining area is common, varying by time. This practice increases the quantity of food prepared and causes recurring losses of containers. Naturally, vendors factor these costs into higher prices.
4. Therefore, banning the removal of food from the premises must be strictly enforced, regardless of one's influence or status. Food service must be confined to the dining area and not extended to offices or staff rooms. Mathematically, 500 MPs multiplied by 8 staff each equals 4,000 people. With a budget of 1,000 baht per head, this could multiply spending unknowingly by nine times.
5. Looking beyond the 50 million baht figure, while it may seem large, it is not the core problem. If we seriously address corruption, nationwide project kickbacks, and vote-buying, the amount saved from the 3 trillion baht national budget would far exceed this 50 million baht.
Isara emphasized that real change does not require MPs to bring food from home but starts with a collective commitment not to commit fraud by all 500 MPs. If politics ceases to be a business where one must invest 30–50 million baht to enter parliament, the incentive to recoup that investment from public funds diminishes. This could be the most powerful budget saving in the country, surpassing the savings from parliamentary canteen meals. Saving public funds is easy—not by eating less, but by corrupting less. There is no need to eat less, only to stop embezzling.