Noppadol urges the government to clearly communicate to the public how the "TH-AI Passport" program helps increase income, reduce costs, and develop Thai skills. He observes that in the digital world, nothing is truly free and cybersecurity must be taken into account. He emphasizes the need to consider cybersecurity.
On 7 June 2026, Assistant Professor Dr. Noppadol Kannika, an instructor in Peace Process Innovation at the Faculty of Public Administration and advisor to the Digital College at Siam Technology College, as well as a representative of the Academic Network for Creative AI Advancement at the Community Happiness Research Institute headquartered at Mahidol University, spoke about the wide debate in Thai society regarding the TH-AI Passport project. He stated that the world is not waiting for Thailand; AI is advancing regardless of public debate. If discussions drag on, Thais risk falling behind in AI. In five years, neighboring countries may have large populations proficient in AI, while most Thais remain unaware of how to use AI for learning, work, business, or income generation. The key question is what Thailand stands to lose by then. Recently, the IMF revealed Thailand has the lowest growth in ASEAN. He asked how Thai people feel about that.
Assistant Professor Dr. Noppadol added that he believes government, opposition, academics, business sectors, and citizens all share the important goal of not letting Thailand fall behind in the AI era. The differences lie not in goals but in questions of methods, cost-effectiveness, transparency, and real outcomes for the people. When society raises questions, the government has the duty to answer and move forward. Therefore, instead of debating who's right or wrong and criticizing each other, we should work together to make this project address society’s concerns effectively, making it a project by the people, of the people, and for the people.
Warning about the risk of lost opportunities.
Assistant Professor Dr. Noppadol noted that Thai society is deeply debating the TH-AI Passport project, with supporters, questioners, and opponents alike. This is normal for large public policies involving budgets, technology, and the nation's future. However, from his observation of the public debate, he believes we might be arguing over issues smaller than the true national and public interest. What’s at stake is not only AI but also the Thai people and Thailand's future competitiveness.
If Thailand's competitors are rapidly developing their citizens' AI skills, but Thai thought leaders focus on social media distortion, denigration, inciting hatred, and debating only system details, technicalities, and budgets, then Thai citizens and the country may unknowingly be losing a strategic opportunity.
He suggests the need for a strategic approach.
"The reason I view this issue more as a 'strategic opportunity' rather than just a 'technology' matter is because I have had the chance to study data science and methodology at the University of Michigan, USA, and later studied strategy, security, environmental assessment, and cybersecurity at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C."
One key lesson I learned, as a Thai who does not try to act like a Westerner, from global experts is that countries with the best technology are not necessarily advantaged long-term. Instead, those that develop their people to use technology effectively, keep up with the times, and leverage it to protect national and public interests are the ones who succeed.” Assistant Professor Dr. Noppadol also said:
He believes the figure of 5 million people is powerful enough.
The first question is why 5 million people should participate in the TH-AI Passport program. The principle of public policy for national development suggests the key question is not "why 5 million" but "how many Thais are needed to create nationwide change." Structural change in public policy cannot occur with just tens or hundreds of thousands of people. With Thailand’s population aged 15 and over at about 55-60 million, if only 50,000 or 100,000 people participate—that’s less than 0.2%—the outcomes and impact will be limited and lack sufficient transformative power.
However, when participation reaches about 5 million, or roughly 8-10% of the working-age population, it reaches what social scientists and policymakers call the 'critical mass' of change. This concept comes from Everett M. Rogers (1931–2004), an American sociologist, statistician, and communication scholar who proposed the 'Diffusion of Innovations' theory, a key framework explaining how new ideas, technologies, or behaviors spread through society. He was a highly influential professor in communication and social sciences worldwide.
Therefore, the 5 million Thais targeted by the project, including diverse groups such as farmers, online sellers, teachers, students, small entrepreneurs, laborers, the elderly, and people with disabilities, represent both sufficient diversity and numbers to impact the economy, society, education, and labor markets broadly. This figure also fits the available budget to drive the TH-AI Passport project. This principle is not new but is widely accepted internationally, for example:
Explaining why the government cannot negotiate directly with AI companies.
The second question is why the government does not negotiate directly to procure AI services from foreign companies.
According to studies of public procurement laws, government agencies must follow the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act B.E. 2560 (2017), which emphasizes cost-effectiveness, transparency, fair competition, and auditability.
Therefore, for large projects using public funds, service providers cannot be chosen at the agency’s sole discretion but must follow legally prescribed procedures unless exceptions apply, such as sole provider worldwide, specific technical reasons, urgent necessity, and meeting specific criteria. For these reasons, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society’s statement that "The government cannot simply choose to buy services from any foreign AI company at will" is legally supported overall.
Questioning appropriateness and cost-effectiveness.
However, society still has the right to ask whether the chosen implementation approach for this project is appropriate, cost-effective, and beneficial to the country. This policy question deserves clear explanation from the government. Some ask why not follow Singapore’s model of direct contact with AI companies. The answer to consider is that Singapore and Thailand have different contexts, but citizens everywhere want cost-effectiveness, transparency, and proper, auditable use of tax money. The key issue is not copying another country but how to maximize benefits for Thai people under Thai laws that are transparent, fair, and verifiable.
It is the mission of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society.
The third question is whether such a project falls under the mission of the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society. Reviewing the ministry’s roles, it focuses on advancing the country’s digital economy, promoting digital technology use, developing digital skills of citizens, enhancing national competitiveness, developing digital infrastructure, and strengthening cybersecurity. Thus, if the TH-AI Passport project aims to upgrade AI skills, increase productivity, reduce work costs, create economic opportunities, and prepare Thais for the new world, it clearly fits within the ministry’s core mission as intended at its establishment.
Warning to avoid missing opportunities.
However, reviewing both the TOR and public critiques, much debate still focuses on budget, technology systems, contractors, or technical details, all important and requiring transparency. But as a strategy scholar, I see that if the debate stops at the question of "What is being bought, at what price, and who gets the contract, " society may be missing a more crucial question: "Is Thailand preparing its people for the AI era?" Another topic needing more discussion is "digital sovereignty." In the modern world, data, knowledge, user behavior, and decision-making patterns are becoming strategic resources as valuable as economic assets or critical national infrastructure.
This deserves greater attention in the debate.
Protecting citizen data.
The question Thai society should consider is not just whether we can access AI for free, but how well Thailand can protect citizen data, regulate technology use, and safeguard national interests in the AI era.
In the digital world, nothing is truly free. Using services always involves exchanging something—data, user behavior, or user interests. Therefore, alongside access to technology, data protection, cybersecurity, and the country’s ability to shape its digital future must also be considered.
Assistant Professor Dr. Noppadol said that if the TH-AI Passport proceeds, the government should more clearly communicate to the public not only how the project increases income, reduces costs, or develops AI skills but also how it enhances digital security, data protection, and long-term national benefits.